I started listening to the arguments presented by the DoJ in the Loving case. See the link below.
My take is that the Appeal judges were really questioning the DoJ/IRS and gave their Counsel a ‘grilling’. Why has it taken a 100 years for the IRS to decide that representatives should include tax return preparers.
They then ‘grill’ Counsel on the qualities/characteristics of tax representers set out in a,b,c and d where DoJ/IRS argues ‘and’ actually means ‘or’.
Take a listen – if you have the time – it’s interesting, and see what you think.
The NATP made the following announcement today:
On Tuesday, September 24, oral arguments were heard in the Loving v. IRS case. The IRS was first to present their arguments, followed by representatives of Loving et al. The IRS finished with a rebuttal. Both sides were questioned by the judges on a variety of topics, including:Definition and history of the terms “representation” and “presenting a case” Intent of the regulations Whether or not paid preparers are the biggest problem of inaccurate prepared returns Why volunteer preparers (VITA) are not included in the regulations Power of Attorney requirements
The oral arguments, in its entirety, are available as recordings on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit website. An opinion is expected to be issued before year-end.