Attorney-at-Law

MODIFIED LOVING

In Uncategorized on 02/04/2013 at 08:43

No, this post is not a prelude to Valentine’s Day. I’m writing about Judge Boasberg’s modification to his injunction against Dougie Shulman’s Legacy, the RTRP regulations.

You’ll remember that Judge Boasberg in D.C. District Court enjoined IRS from proceeding with the RTRP registration and CPE requirements; see my blogpost “Chevron, Mayo- I’m Loving It”, 1/21/13.

IRS says it will appeal, but hasn’t done so yet. IRS asks Judge Boasberg to lift his injunction pending appeal. Judge Boasberg says “no, but you can keep the PTIN program because Section 6109(a)(4) authorizes it, and Congress enacted that requirement, unlike the RTRP that Dougie Shulman made up”.

And IRS’ yelp about the money expended combines moneys that came in from PTINs and from RTRP registrations, so maybe the loss isn’t that great. Anyway, IRS can keep its existing staff on the job, and the testing centers open. Preparers may sign up voluntarily, to get an extra credential, and the PTIN operation can go on (but without requiring PTIN holders to take tests and CPE).

So here’s Judge Boasberg’s modification of the Loving injunction. “The Injunction is MODIFIED to make clear that the IRS is not required to suspend its PTIN program, nor is it required to shut down all of its testing and continuing- education centers; instead, they may remain, but no tax-return preparer may be required to pay testing or continuing-education fees or to complete any testing or continuing education unless and until this injunction is stayed or vacated by the Court of Appeals.” Order, p. 7.

Finally, in a slap against us bloggers, “The Service next maintains that staying the injunction would not substantially harm Plaintiffs both because their attorney allegedly told a blogger from Forbes that they planned to continue preparing returns this season even without an injunction and because they still have until the end of the year to pass the exam. See Mot. at 8. The Court, as a threshold matter, credits sworn declarations of parties over blog posts that attribute comments to an attorney. And here, as noted in the Opinion, two Plaintiffs indicated that the new regulations would cause them to close their tax-preparation businesses. See Loving, 2013 WL 204667, at *4.” Order, p. 5.

C’mon Judge, we bloggers really try to tell it like it is.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: