I concur.

You, I, those who have submitted the above supportive comments, those who have submitted comments elsewhere, and other tax bloggers have all properly and eloquently pointed out that the common, and universally (except for one) accepted, definition of a “professional” is someone who is educated, trained and experienced in a trade, profession or activity, complies with the rules and regulations and standards of that trade, profession or activity, AND is paid for working in that trade, profession or activity.

Being a professional in a trade, profession or activity does not require licensure or certification or official acknowledgement from any government regulatory office. A professional does not need a third party to hold him/her to professional standards – a professional can on his/her own hold himself/herself to professional standards.

There is no basis in fact or practice for the opinion expressed in the offending blog post.

The offending post has nothing whatsoever to do with, and adds nothing to, the debate on regulating tax preparers.

The purpose of the offending post was to be contrary and to draw attention to the author, and not to provide any intelligent discussion on a controversial and important issue.

The offending post was an insult to about half the population, and an apology is called for.

That said, let’s not give the offending blogger any more “attention”. Let us spend our valuable time discussing more important issues.

TWTP

In your blog posts you argue that unlicensed (unenrolled) tax preparers and – at least by inference – similarly situated unlicensed persons of other occupations are not “professionals”. Please defend your position by addressing the following issues.

Please explain the source for the following statements you make as if fact:

“[a]nd the reason CPAs, Enrolled Agents and Attorneys are not so limited is because they were initially required by an accredited third-party licensing and regulatory body to demonstrate their core competence and are currently required by that regulatory body to adhere on an ongoing basis to a set of rigorous technical and ethical standards.” (emphasis in original text.)

“The reason unenrolled tax preparers are strictly limited in the things they are permitted to do is because they have not been licensed and are not regulated by any third party regulatory body.”

Because you chose to reference Logic 101, please explain how your argument that EAs, CPAs and attorneys are tax professionals who are subject to initial and continuing licensing board requirements leads to the conclusion that others, not subject to those requirements are not professionals. You presume that the definition of “professional” includes only persons subject to continuing licensing board requirements but you have offered no proof of that definition. In fact, the definition you present from the Australian Council supports the contrary conclusion as do most other published definitions including those published by Merriam-Webster in their online dictionary at http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary and the free online version of the Oxford English Dictionary provided at http://www.askoxford.com.

You might want to try this website if you want a definition that provides better support for your position: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/professional.html#. But bear in mind when using it, certified doesn’t equate to licensed.

Please explain why adherence must be to the technical/ethical requirements of the board who issued the initial license. Here is your statement verbatim: “And the reason CPAs, Enrolled Agents and Attorneys are not so limited is because they were initially required by an accredited third-party licensing and regulatory body to demonstrate their core competence and are currently required by that regulatory body to adhere on an ongoing basis to a set of rigorous technical and ethical standards.” (Emphasis by bold font added; all other emphasis in original.)

This statement blatantly ignores the authority of regulatory bodies other than the licensing board, the potential move by a practitioner from one jurisdiction to another and the voluntary surrendering of a professional license for reasons other than disciplinary actions. It also ignores the standards and codes of other organizations of which an unenrolled preparer may be a member. How do you explain these things away?

Please redress the statement “[t]he reason unenrolled tax preparers are strictly limited in the things they are permitted to do is because they have not been licensed and are not regulated by any third party regulatory body.” (Emphasis added.) This statement is patently false. Surely you noted in your reading of Pub. 470 that the IRS’ has authority over unenrolled preparers. Or is it that you believe the IRS to be other than a third party regulatory body?

Please explain how the definition you obtained from the Australian Council of Professions is relevant to the determination of whether an American tax preparer is a professional.

Even if relevant, that definition doesn’t support your position so why did you present it? This definition supports the proposition that unenrolled preparer are professionals because they are held to a standard of conduct and a code of ethics by a regulatory body (namely the IRS). Not to mention that unenrolled preparers who are members of the NATP and other such organizations with similar standards and codes also meet this definition.

Please answer the following questions:
If I held and surrendered – for other than disciplinary reasons – a law license (thus proving my initial competency) and adhere to the standards and ethics required by the IRS (continuing adherence to rigorous technical and ethical standards), I would meet your definition of a professional – other than that the regulatory body is not the issuing body – even though I am unlicensed, correct?

Isn’t it true that by your definition, even if I am the CEO of a fortune 500 company I am not a professional? I don’t have a license and I don’t have to prove my core competency to a third-party regulatory body and therefore, based on your definition, I am not a professional. Likewise, by your definition any competency I do have is self-acclaimed and thus I have failed to prove my compentency, correct?

If I am a college professor, I am not a professional because I don’t need a license whereas, if I teach elementary grade levels at a public school, I am a professional because of my licensing/regulatory/ethical requirements? What if I have a state teachers license but then choose to teach at the college level? Am I or am I not a professional?

What if I hold a CPA license but haven’t done an audit since licensure, say 30 years ago. I passed the exam and am still licensed as a CPA, keeping up on accounting/auditing CPE requirements? Surely, I have the authority (but not the stupidity) to perform an audit. I am still a professional auditor by your definition, correct?

What if I hold a law license and maintain all of my MCLE requirements? I have a civil tax practice but clearly my license permits me to practice drunk driving defense. That gives me the right to claim to be a professional drunk driving defense attorney according to your definition, correct? Note to bar: I am NOT making this claim.
Finally, why do you criticize the use of ad hominem attacks, then engage in ad hominem attacks? For example, the use of the adjective “simple” in the following sentence is unnecessary and obviously meant to be demeaning: “Because some of my fellow tax bloggers have been unable to grasp the simple concept . . .”

Because the respondents disagreed with your position doesn’t mean they couldn’t grasp the concept or that the concept is simple. Obviously it is anything but simple; even you are struggling with the task of putting together a cogent argument favorable to your premise.

I’ll look forward to your response.

There are many wonderful, worthy, wildly competent and honest non-professionals in the world. I applaud them all, including the fork-lift operators, the sanitation workers and the unenrolled preparers.

I have said many times that I think there are a good number of non-professional tax preparers out there who are better tax preparers than a lot of us professionals, including me. I merely said what I thought was the obvious: Competence alone doesn’t make a person a member of a profession.

By the way, I would be making these arguments even if I were not a CPA and an attorney because I believe them to be true.

Let me give you an example:

Although I have done a lot of research on medical issues and consider myself very knowledgeable on the subject, I am not a member of the medical profession. Regardless of how much “medicine” I practice and how much medical knowledge I obtain, unless I become licensed by and subject to the standards of a medical regulatory body I will not be a medical professional.

If a Doctor told me this I would surely not accuse him of thinking he was superior to me or of being pompous and arrogant.

Finally, Kim, I do appreciate that it is painful for some unenrolled preparers to admit that they are not members of a profession. Especially those preparers who are good at what they do. It is, I am sure, tough to accept.

Hopefully IRS tax preparer regulation will change all of that.

Post Script:

Kim, you don’t know me at all so I pardon you for your personal attacks.

I am sure that under different circumstances – say a couple of glasses of Shiraz, a little Sade on the stereo and a moonlit night – you’d think differently about me.

I’m not going to go through and refute point by point the ridiculousness of what Mr. Pompous – oops I’m sorry, Mr. Pappas states as fact – especially since I believe that the Missouri Tax Guy, Bruce McFarland, did that both brilliantly and eloquently, but rather just provide my opinions and “take” on this whole thing.

I find it absolutely ludicrous that this tax lawyer and CPA Peter thinks he’s somehow better than others in this profession/business just because he has a piece of paper from a school(s) saying he’s taken classes on the subject or because he took and passed some regulatory state test(s) that allow him to display a plaque on his wall. It’s actually not only quite insulting to so many preparers and people in this PROFESSION who are great at what they do and make their living at it (which is a profession by another definition Peter: “the body of people in a learned occupation who have acquired knowledge, skills and competencies in a particular field through specialized educational training or practical skills”) but it’s also insulting to millions of other hard-working people who go to work each day just like him and do their job efficiently and help keep this country running, but by his definition are not professionals. It just really shows such an arrogance.

Actually I wonder, since he disputed the PROFESSION of fork-lift operators as I recall, amongst others, perhaps sanitation workers, where would he be if those that operate forklifts in plants that provide goods to the stores at which he shops or his local garbage man/woman decided NOT to employ their PROFESSION?

This is an excerpt from a post he wrote 10/20 in response to The Tax Guy’s response to his response (follow that?)
(Peter to Bruce)
1. And, if you are right and fork lift operators are members of a profession that doesn’t make me pompous, it merely makes me wrong. But I don’t believe I am wrong. Even though I am very fond of fork lift operators, I don’t consider them to be members of a profession. I don’t consider chauffers, bus drivers, taxi cab drivers to be members of professions either.
And, likewise and for the same reasons, unlicensed, unenrolled, unregulated tax return preparers do not belong to a profession.

You say (paraphrasing) Mr. Pappas that if it’s correct that they are members of a profession, that merely makes you wrong, not pompous, perhaps…..it’s pretty much everything else you say that makes you pompous in my view.

Then the audacity of this man to go on to continue to argue the point – almost to death, showed me nothing more than his self-righteousness and elitist attitude to get in the last word, somehow thinking that was going to make such a difference or impact on us all.

As I said at the beginning of this, I work with hundreds of people in this profession, many on a weekly or monthly basis, from sole proprietors to larger firms and after talking to so many of these professionals, I think I’ve developed a pretty good read on the pulse of this business and I truly believe and certainly hope that Mr. Pappas’ definition and view of a true “professional” is that of the great minority because I for one have great respect for the work they do.

Kim B.