The IRS has issued proposed regulations[1] that would revise Circular 230, removing provisions found at sections 10.3 through 10.6 of the current Circular 230 that related to the regulation of registered return preparers, clarify that practice before the IRS includes “preparation and submission of tax returns in connection with representing a client in a matter before the IRS,” eliminate Section 10.27 of the current Circular 230 that bars the acceptance of contingent fees (but now making accepting such fees disreputable conduct in certain situations), expand the definition of competency to include requiring that a federally authorized tax practitioner (FATP) must maintain certain minimum qualifications of technological competency related to tax practice as well as make additional changes.

Unless otherwise provided for in the proposed regulations, these regulations would become effective 30 days after being published in final form in the Federal Register.[2]

Elimination of Provisions Related to Registered Return Preparers

The preamble to the proposed regulations begins by describing the history of the IRS’s Registered Tax Return Preparers regulations that were proposed in 2011:

On June 3, 2011, the Treasury Department and the IRS published final regulations (TD 9527) in the Federal Register (76 FR 32286) to establish qualifications for tax return preparers, which required them to become registered tax return preparers subject to the requirements under Circular 230 and describing the allowable scope of a registered tax return preparer’s practice before the IRS (2011 amendments).

The 2011 amendments were challenged in Loving v. IRS, 917 F.Supp.2d 67 (D.D.C. 2013), in which case the plaintiffs argued that the Treasury Department and the IRS did not have authority under 31 U.S.C. 330 to regulate tax return preparation because return preparation was not practice before the IRS. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (District Court for the District of Columbia or district court) concluded that under 31 U.S.C. 330(a), practice before the IRS is limited to representing taxpayers before the IRS by assisting them in presenting their cases. Because the district court considered preparing and filing tax returns as falling short of “presenting a case,” it held that the Treasury Department and the IRS lacked statutory authority to regulate tax return preparation as practice before the IRS under 31 U.S.C. 330(a) and enjoined the Treasury Department and the IRS from enforcing the 2011 amendments to Circular 230 related to registered tax return preparers. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit or court of appeals) affirmed the district court’s opinion and order for injunction. The court of appeals upheld the district court’s statutory construction, explaining that, while tax return preparers assist taxpayers, they do not represent taxpayers before the IRS or formally act as their agent. Loving v. IRS, 742 F.3d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 2014).[3]

In Section A.1. of the preamble, the IRS states that, as the Registered Tax Return Preparer rules are no longer enforceable, §§10.3-10.6 of Circular 230 which contains related to the regulation of such individuals are going to be removed if these proposed regulations are adopted.

As a result of the decision and injunction order in Loving, the 2011 amendments that relate to registered tax return preparers are no longer enforceable. Therefore, the proposed regulations would eliminate rules regarding registered tax return preparers under current §§10.3 through 10.6. The proposed regulations would also remove references to registered tax return preparers under current §§10.0, 10.2, 10.30, 10.38, and 10.90 and redesignate current §10.90 as §10.110.[4]

When Preparing a Tax Return Represents Practice Before the IRS

The Loving decision, as noted above, also provided that tax return preparation in general was not practice before the IRS. In the proposed regulations the IRS seeks to regulate a more limited set of cases involving tax return preparation, applying rules only when the preparation is directly related to something that does qualify as representation before the IRS. The preamble states at Section A.2:

Circular 230 contains provisions that are unrelated to the registered tax return preparer program but impose specific standards on tax return preparation. Consistent with the holding in Loving, the proposed regulations would eliminate or revise these provisions to impose standards related to tax returns prepared, approved, or submitted in connection with representing a client in a matter before the IRS. This distinction would be also incorporated under the amended definition of “practice before the IRS” under proposed §10.2(a)(4), which would clarify that practice before the IRS includes the preparation and submission of tax returns in connection with representing a client in a matter before the IRS.

Current §10.8 provides rules related to tax return preparation, describes actions that individuals who did not prepare all, or substantially all, of a tax return can take before the IRS, and prohibits non-practitioners from preparing all, or substantially all, of a tax return. The proposed regulations would eliminate the current language under §10.8 in its entirety.[5]

The preamble next goes on to note revised guidance on what actions non-practitioners may take in response to IRS inquiries:

However, guidance regarding what actions non-practitioners may take in response to IRS inquiries is still necessary and authorized under 31 U.S.C. 330. Therefore, the proposed regulations would retitle current §10.8 as “Participation in IRS proceedings by non-practitioners” and would provide that, except for appraisers who have been disqualified pursuant to proposed §10.61(a), any individual may appear as a witness before the IRS or furnish information at the request of the IRS.[6]

New §10.8 would read as follows if the proposed regulations are adopted:

§10.8 Participation in IRS proceedings by non-practitioners.

(a) Furnishing Information. Any individual, except appraisers who have been disqualified pursuant to §10.61(a), including non-practitioners, may appear as a witness before the Internal Revenue Service, or furnish information at the request of the Internal Revenue Service or any of its officers or employees.

(b) Applicability date. This section is applicable beginning on [date 30 days after date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register].[7]

Circular 230 §10.22 would be revised to limit its applicability on diligence as to accuracy to apply only to tax returns prepared in connection with representing a client before the IRS. The preamble provides:

Current §10.22 imposes standards related to diligence as to accuracy, including standards related to the preparation or approval of tax returns, documents, affidavits, and other papers. The proposed regulations would revise current §10.22 to specify that the diligence as to the accuracy requirement for tax returns is limited to tax returns prepared, approved, or submitted in connection with representing a client in a matter before the IRS. The proposed regulations would not revise existing diligence standards related to documents, affidavits, and other papers that are not tax returns. The diligence requirements in the proposed regulations would also apply to a practitioner's preparation of a tax return prior to representing a client in a matter before the IRS when the subsequent representation involves the tax return. When the representation involves a tax return prepared by a practitioner, the practitioner’s diligence with respect to preparing the tax return would be treated under the proposed regulations as related to the practitioner’s practice before the IRS under 31 U.S.C. 330(a).[8]

The revisions to Circular 230 §10.22 would read as follows:

§10.22 Diligence as to accuracy.

(a) * * *

(1) In preparing or assisting in the preparation of, approving, or submitting documents, affidavits, and other papers, including tax returns prepared, approved or submitted in connection with representing a client in a matter before the Internal Revenue Service;

(2) In determining the correctness of oral or written representations made by the practitioner when representing a client in a matter before the Internal Revenue Service; and

(3) In determining the correctness of oral or written representations made by the practitioner to clients when representing clients in a matter before the Internal Revenue Service.

* * * * *

(c) Applicability date. This section is applicable beginning on [date 30 days after date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register].[9]

Current Circular 230 §10.34 related to standards for preparation of tax returns and other documents would also be revised under the proposed regulations:

Current §10.34 imposes standards with respect to a practitioner’s preparation of tax returns and other documents. The current regulations incorporate standards under the Code relating to tax return positions, describe standards for advising clients with respect to potential penalties, and address the ability of a practitioner to rely on information furnished by a client. The proposed regulations would maintain these standards but clarify that the standards only apply to a tax return either when the tax return is prepared while representing a client before the IRS or when the tax return prepared prior to representation is submitted while representing a client before the IRS, regardless of whether the tax return was filed with the IRS before the representation begins. With respect to tax returns prepared prior to representation, the current standards relate to a practitioner’s duty to not further an unreasonable return position taken on a previously prepared return while representing a client in a matter before the IRS. The proposed regulations would not impose the standards on the preparation of a tax return in the absence of a practitioner’s representation of a client.[10]

The proposed revisions to Circular 230 §10.34 are provided below:

§10.34 Standards with respect to tax returns, documents, affidavits, and other papers prepared or submitted while representing a client before the Internal Revenue Service.

(a) Tax returns prepared or submitted while representing a client in a matter before the IRS.

(1) * * *

(i) Prepare, while representing a client in a matter before the Internal Revenue Service or, for tax returns prepared by the practitioner prior to the representation, including returns already filed with the Internal Revenue Service, submit a tax return or claim for refund or a claim for a credit that the practitioner knows or reasonably should know contains a position that—

* * * * *

(1) * * *

(i) A position taken on a tax return that is relevant to the representation of a client in a matter before the Internal Revenue Service if—

(A) The practitioner provided written advice, as defined under §10.37, to the client with respect to the position; or

(B) The practitioner prepared and submitted the tax return while representing the client in a matter before the IRS.

(ii) Any document, affidavit or other paper submitted in a matter before the Internal Revenue Service.

* * * * *

(d) Relying on information furnished by clients. A practitioner advising a client to take a position on a tax return, document, affidavit or other paper submitted in a matter before the Internal Revenue Service, generally may rely in good faith without verification upon information furnished by the client. However, the practitioner may not ignore the implications of information furnished to, or actually known by, the practitioner, and must make reasonable inquiries if the information as furnished appears to be incorrect, inconsistent with an important fact or another factual assumption, or incomplete.

(e) Applicability date. This section is applicable beginning on [date 30 days after date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register].[11]

While these rules no longer exist regarding the governance of the preparation of tax returns in general under Circular 230, CPAs should be aware that the Statements on Standards for Tax Services have very similar standards which will still apply to returns prepared by CPAs even if the CPA is not representing the client before the IRS.

Final regulations (TD 9359) published in the Federal Register (72 FR 54540) on September 26, 2007, amended the rules under Circular 230 regarding charging contingent fees in current §10.27 (2007 amendments). The 2007 amendments amended the exceptions to the general prohibition on contingent fees, which prohibited practitioners from charging contingent fees for original returns, to permit practitioners to charge a contingent fee for services rendered in connection with the IRS’s examination of, or challenge to, (i) an original tax return or (ii) an amended return or claim for refund or credit where the amended return or claim for refund or credit was filed within 120 days of the taxpayer receiving a written notice of the examination or a written challenge to the original tax return. The Treasury Department and the IRS subsequently clarified the 2007 amendments in Notice 2008-43, 2008-1 C.B. 748 (March 26, 2008) to provide that a practitioner may charge a contingent fee for services rendered in connection with the IRS's examination of, or challenge to, an amended return or claim for refund or credit filed (1) before the taxpayer received a written notice of examination of, or a written challenge to, the original tax return or (2) no later than 120 days after the receipt of such written notice or written challenge. Notice 2008-43 also provided an exception that allows practitioners to charge a contingent fee with respect to whistleblower claims under section 7623 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Current §10.27 also permits practitioners to charge contingent fees in connection with the determination of statutory interest and penalties and for services rendered in connection with judicial proceedings arising under the Code. Current §10.27 prohibits contingent fee arrangements for services rendered in connection with any other matter before the IRS, including the preparation of original returns, amended returns, and claims for refund or credit.

On July 28, 2009, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (74 FR 37183) a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-113289-08) proposing modifications to the rules relating to contingent fees under Circular 230 (2009 proposed regulations). The 2009 proposed regulations have not been finalized.

In 2014, the District Court for the District of Columbia held that preparing and filing ordinary refund claims, like preparing original tax returns, did not involve representing taxpayers or practice before the IRS. Ridgely v. Lew, 55 F. Supp.3d 89 (D.D.C. 2014). As a result, according to the district court, the IRS lacked authority to treat the preparation of ordinary refund claims as practice before the IRS as described under 31 U.S.C. 330(a). Id. Thus, the district court concluded that the IRS cannot prohibit charging contingent fees for ordinary refund claims based on its authority to regulate practice before the IRS under 31 U.S.C. 330(a).[12]

Changes to Rules Related to the Acceptance of Contingent Fees

Another area where the IRS ran a foul of the courts related to its regulations of the receipt of contingent fees under Circular 230 at the current section 10.27.

Final regulations (TD 9359) published in the Federal Register (72 FR 54540) on September 26, 2007, amended the rules under Circular 230 regarding charging contingent fees in current §10.27 (2007 amendments). The 2007 amendments amended the exceptions to the general prohibition on contingent fees, which prohibited practitioners from charging contingent fees for original returns, to permit practitioners to charge a contingent fee for services rendered in connection with the IRS’s examination of, or challenge to, (i) an original tax return or (ii) an amended return or claim for refund or credit where the amended return or claim for refund or credit was filed within 120 days of the taxpayer receiving a written notice of the examination or a written challenge to the original tax return. The Treasury Department and the IRS subsequently clarified the 2007 amendments in Notice 2008-43, 2008-1 C.B. 748 (March 26, 2008) to provide that a practitioner may charge a contingent fee for services rendered in connection with the IRS’s examination of, or challenge to, an amended return or claim for refund or credit filed (1) before the taxpayer received a written notice of examination of, or a written challenge to, the original tax return or (2) no later than 120 days after the receipt of such written notice or written challenge. Notice 2008-43 also provided an exception that allows practitioners to charge a contingent fee with respect to whistleblower claims under section 7623 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Current §10.27 also permits practitioners to charge contingent fees in connection with the determination of statutory interest and penalties and for services rendered in connection with judicial proceedings arising under the Code. Current §10.27 prohibits contingent fee arrangements for services rendered in connection with any other matter before the IRS, including the preparation of original returns, amended returns, and claims for refund or credit.

The preamble explains that the IRS placed that restriction in Circular 230 to discourage FATPs from “playing the audit lottery,” that is, taking a very aggressive approach based primarily on the hope the return in question would never be examined.

Current §10.27 prohibits practitioners from entering into contingent fee arrangements for services rendered in connection with a “matter before the IRS,” which §10.27(c)(2) defines to include assisting with filing tax returns or claims for refund or credit and “all matters connected with a presentation to the [IRS] . . . relating to a taxpayer's rights, privileges, or liabilities under the laws and regulations administered by the [IRS].” Current §10.27 was intended to restrict contingent fee arrangements based on their potential to encourage practitioners and their clients to take aggressive positions with the hope that they will not be audited.[14]

The notes in the preamble that the Ridgely court did not address the issue of contingent fees other than noting that the IRS has no authority to regulate directly when dealing with conduct that was preparation of an ordinary refund claim. Presumably based on this view of the opinion, the IRS now proposes to regulate them under provisions allowing the IRS to take action against an FATP for engaging in “disreputable conduct” by defining the charging of such as representing such conduct:

The proposed regulations would remove current §10.27 and, under subpart C, define disreputable conduct under proposed §10.51 to include both charging contingent fees in connection with the preparation of an original or amended tax return or claim for refund or credit, and charging fees that, under the facts and circumstances, are unconscionable fees.

Charging a contingent fee for the preparation of an original return, amended return, or claim for refund or credit prepared prior to the examination of a tax return is disreputable conduct because these circumstances encourage evasion or abuse of Federal tax laws by incentivizing practitioners to take unduly aggressive tax positions for their clients, which would increase their clients’ reported tax benefits, thus resulting in personal gain for the practitioner. A practitioner with a direct, financial interest in the tax benefits of a client may be incentivized to increase such tax benefits. Therefore, these contingent fee arrangements reflect conduct that is incompatible with ethical practice before the Treasury Department or the IRS under Circular 230.

Under 31 U.S.C. 330(c), the Treasury Department and the IRS have the authority to censure or suspend or disbar from practice before the Treasury Department or the IRS practitioners who engage in disreputable conduct whether or not the conduct constitutes representation of a client. Unlike the contingent fee standards under current §10.27, proposed §10.51 is not dependent upon the preparation of a tax return or claim for refund or credit constituting practice before the IRS. Charging contingent fees for preparing tax returns, amended returns, and claims for refund or credit is prohibited under the rules of professional conduct applicable to many accountants. The American Institute for Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Code of Professional Conduct, for example, acknowledges the disreputable nature of contingent fees and prohibits CPAs from charging contingent fees for the preparation of original returns, amended returns, and ordinary refund claims because of the risk that these contingent fee arrangements would allow a CPA to benefit improperly from an interest in, or relationship with, a client. See AICPA Code of Professional Conduct 1.000.010.14(c); 1.510.001.01(b). Many state accountancy board rules also prohibit contingent fee arrangements for preparing an original or amended return or claim for refund or credit. See, e.g., N.J. Admin. Code section 13:29-3.8(e) (2019); Tenn. Code Ann. section 62-1-123(b)(1)(B) (2016) (prohibiting contingent fees for preparation of an original return); Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 16 section 62(a)(2) & (3) (2021); cf. New York Society of Certified Public Accountants Code of Professional Conduct Rule 302 (March 2013).[15]

The new Circular 230 §10.51 would read as follows:

§10.51 Fees that constitute disreputable conduct.

(a) Unconscionable fees. Charging an unconscionable fee is disreputable conduct.

(b) Contingent fees. Charging a contingent fee in connection with the preparation of an original or amended tax return or claim for refund or credit prepared prior to the examination of the tax return is disreputable conduct.

(1) Preparation of an original or amended tax return or claim forrefund or credit includes providing advice that is directly relevant to determining the existence, character, or amount of an item, entry, or another portion of a tax return or claim for refund, including any schedules that are part of the tax return or claim for refund or credit.

(2) Contingent fee is any fee that is based in whole or in part on whether or not a position taken on a tax return or other filing avoids challenge by the Internal Revenue Service or is sustained either by the Internal Revenue Service or in litigation. A contingent fee includes a fee that is based on a percentage of the refund reported on a tax return, that is based on a percentage of the taxes saved, or that otherwise depends on the specific tax result attained. A contingent fee also includes any fee arrangement in which the practitioner will reimburse the client for all or a portion of the client’s fee in the event that a position on a tax return or other filing is challenged by the Internal Revenue Service or is not sustained, whether pursuant to an indemnity agreement, a guarantee, rescission rights, or any other arrangement with a similar effect.

(c) Applicability date. This section is applicable beginning on [date 30 days after date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register].[16]

Disreputable Conduct

The IRS proposes to make a number of changes to Circular 230 §10.50 related to disreputable conduct. The preamble notes:

Current §10.51 defines disreputable conduct for which a practitioner may be sanctioned. Incompetence or disreputable conduct under current §10.51 is a basis for imposing sanctions against practitioners that is separate from a failure to meet the duties and abide by the restrictions relating to practice before the IRS under subpart B. Subpart C, retitled to relate to incompetence and disreputable conduct, would redesignate current §10.51 as proposed §10.50 and, as described in part B of this Explanation of Provisions, proposed §10.51 would define certain fee arrangements that constitute disreputable conduct.

Proposed §10.50(a) would explain that a practitioner can be sanctioned for conduct that relates to the practitioner’s overall fitness to practice and is not limited to actions taken while representing clients in a matter before the IRS. Proposed §10.50(a)(12) would clarify that contemptuous conduct subject to sanction includes conduct in connection with practice before the IRS, any proceeding pursuant to redesignated proposed §10.80 or any investigation by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. New proposed §10.50(a)(19) would provide that the willful failure to follow any Federal tax law is disreputable conduct because knowingly violating a Federal tax law reflects a lack of due regard for the tax laws.

New proposed §10.50(b) would provide that any assessment against a practitioner of penalties relating to a willful attempt to understate tax liabilities under section 6694(b); aiding or abetting in the understatement of tax liabilities under section 6701; careless, reckless, or intentional disregard for the rules or regulations (within the meaning of 26 CFR 1.6662-3(b)(2) and 1.6694-3(c)) under section 6662(b)(1); or promotion of abusive tax shelters under section 6700 will be considered a violation of proposed §10.50(a)(7). The assessment of any of these penalties, however, would not be required to show a violation of proposed §10.50(a)(7).[17]

Current Circular 230 §10.51 would be renumbered as §10.50, with the following revisions.

§10.50 Incompetence or disreputable conduct.

(a) Incompetence or disreputable conduct. Incompetence or disreputable conduct for which a practitioner may be sanctioned under §10.70 includes actions that relate to a practitioner’s fitness to practice before the Internal Revenue Service, regardless of whether those actions are connected to a presentation to the Internal Revenue Service as defined under §10.2(a)(4). Incompetence or disreputable conduct includes, but is not limited to—

* * * * *

(12) Contemptuous conduct in connection with practice before the Internal Revenue Service (or during any proceeding pursuant to §10.80 or an investigation by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration), including the use of abusive or otherwise contemptuous acts or language, making false accusations or statements, knowing them to be false, or circulating or publishing malicious or libelous matter.

* * * * *

(19) Willfully failing to follow any Federal tax law.

(b) Assessment of certain penalties. Assessment against a practitioner of a penalty related to a willful attempt to understate tax liabilities under section 6694(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code); aiding or abetting in the understatement of tax liabilities under section 6701 of the Code; careless, reckless, or intentional disregard for applicable rules or regulations (within the meaning of 26 CFR 1.6662-3(b)(2) and 1.6694-3(c)) under section 6662(b)(1) of the Code; or promotion of abusive tax shelters under section 6700 of the Code will be considered a violation of paragraph (a)(7) of this section. The assessment of any of these penalties, however, is not required to show a violation of paragraph (a)(7) of this section.

(c) Applicability date. This section is applicable beginning on [date 30 days after date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register].[18]

Requirement That FATP Maintain Minimum Technological Competence

The best practices provisions of Circular 230 §10.33(a)(4) would be revised to provide best practices standards for data security issues. The preamble explains:

Proposed §10.33(a)(4) would provide that it is a best practice for practitioners to create a data security policy to maintain safeguards with respect to client information and establish a plan and procedures for responding to data breaches. Practitioners who also prepare returns have a legal obligation to comply with the Federal Trade Commission’s Safeguards Rule under the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, which requires businesses to implement safeguards, including a written information security plan, to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity of customer information. 16 CFR part 314 (2002). This proposed change acknowledges this duty and complements the newly proposed duty to maintain technological competence under proposed §10.35 and better aligns Circular 230 with other professional standards. See American Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 18-483; IRS Publication 4557, Safeguarding Taxpayer Data; IRS Publication 5708, Creating a Written Information Security Plan for Your Tax & Accounting Practice.[19]

The revised Circular 230 §10.33(a)(4) would read as follows:

(4) Maintaining a policy related to data security safeguards with respect to a client’s tax return or other confidential information. Practitioners should also consider developing an incident response plan with specific procedures for responding to a data breach and for disclosure of data breaches to clients.[20]

In addition, a proposed revision to Circular 230 §10.35 requiring a practitioner to be competent would add requirements to maintain technological competence to meet these requirements.

Current §10.35 provides that a practitioner must be competent when engaged in practice before the IRS. Specifically, practitioners are required to have the appropriate level of knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation necessary for the matter in which the practitioner is engaged. Increasingly, competence also includes maintaining familiarity with technological tools used to represent a client. A similar standard for technological competency is included in the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Proposed §10.35 is based on Comment 8 to ABA Model Rule 1.1 and would define competency to include understanding the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology used by the practitioner to provide services to clients or to store or transmit confidential information, including tax return information.[21]

The proposed revision to Circular 230 §10.35 reads as follows:

§10.35 Competence.

(a) * * * Competency includes understanding the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology that is used by the practitioner to provide services to clients or to store and transmit tax return and other confidential information.

(b) This section is applicable beginning on [date 30 days after date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register].[22]

Knowledge of an Error or Omission

The proposed regulations would contain language clarifying that either the current or prior preparer’s mistake is one that needs to be communicated to the client when either party becomes aware of the error. The preamble describes this change to Circular 230 §10.21 as follows:

Current §10.21 requires practitioners to advise a client of any noncompliance with internal revenue laws or any error or omission on a tax return or other document submitted to the IRS and the consequences under the Code and regulations of the noncompliance, error, or omission. Proposed §10.21 would clarify that the noncompliance, error, or omission may have been made by either the client or the practitioner or a prior practitioner, such as if the practitioner or prior practitioner made an inadvertent mistake on a tax return prepared and filed for the client that the practitioner later discovers.[23]

As well, the IRS proposes to expand the description of actions a practitioner must take when becoming aware of an error or omission in proposed Circular 230 §10.21:

Proposed §10.21 would expand the current guidance by requiring practitioners to explain actions the client should take to correct the noncompliance, error, or omission. Knowingly failing to inform a client of the noncompliance, error, or omission is disreputable conduct under 31 U.S.C. 330(c) because it causes practitioners to perpetuate false or misleading information to the IRS and potentially exposes the client to penalties and other adverse consequences. Proposed §10.21 would also instruct practitioners to consider whether they can continue to meet their obligation to exercise diligence under proposed §10.22(a) as to the accuracy of tax returns and other documents if the client refuses to take corrective action during the course of the practitioner's representation. A practitioner’s obligation under proposed §10.22(a) applies only to tax returns that are prepared, approved, or submitted in connection with representing a client in a matter before the IRS. Under those circumstances, the failure to correct inaccurate or unsupportable return positions would result in their perpetuation in submissions to the IRS during the course of the practitioner’s representation. These changes would align Circular 230 with similar professional standards relating to knowledge of a client’s error. See AICPA Statement on Standards for Tax Services No. 6 (Knowledge of Error: Return Preparation and Administrative Proceedings) (Rev. April 30, 2018); see also Schmitz v. Crotty, 528 N.W. 112 (Iowa 1995) (holding that in a civil malpractice action, an attorney was negligent for, in part, failing to correct an error on tax returns that he was aware of).[24]

Note that the IRS is citing to a prior version of the AICPA SSTSs, though the revisions that took effect on January 1, 2024 provide for very similar requirements for CPAs.

The revised version of Circular 230 10.21 would read as follows:

§10.21 Knowledge of error or omission.

(a) In general. A practitioner who, while representing a client in a matter before the Internal Revenue Service, knows that either the client, the practitioner, or a prior practitioner has not complied with the revenue laws of the United States and regulations, or has made an error in or omission from any return, document, affidavit, or other paper that the client submitted or executed under the revenue laws of the United States and regulations, must advise the client promptly of the fact of such noncompliance, error, or omission. The practitioner must advise the client of the consequences of the noncompliance, error, or omission, as provided under the internal revenue laws of the United States and regulations, and recommend the corrective actions, such as disclosure, to be taken.

(b) Disclosure and continued representation. If a practitioner is representing a client in a matter before the Internal Revenue Service, the practitioner should request the client’s agreement to disclose the noncompliance, error, or omission to the Internal Revenue Service. The practitioner must also take reasonable steps to ensure that the noncompliance, error, or omission is not repeated in subsequent submissions to the Internal Revenue Service. If the client does not agree to disclose the noncompliance, error, or omission, the practitioner should consider whether the practitioner can continue to represent the client before the Internal Revenue Service and meet the obligation to ensure diligence as to accuracy under §10.22.

(c) Applicability date. This section is applicable beginning on [date 30 days after date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register].[25]

The proposed revisions to Circular 230 §10.22(a) have been provided in the earlier discussion of preparing a return as part of practice before the IRS.

Best Practices Related to Identifying Mental Impairment of Practitioners

The proposed revisions include adding a section in Circular 230 §10.33 related to procedures that a firm should implement to identify mental impairment of practitioners in the firm. The preamble notes:

Proposed §10.33(a)(5) would provide that it is a best practice for practitioners to identify, evaluate, and address a mental impairment arising out of, or related to, age, substance abuse, a physical or mental health condition, or some other circumstance that could adversely impact a practitioner's ability to effectively represent a client before the IRS. An impairment, left untreated, can have adverse consequences on a client’s representation and to the health and well-being of a practitioner. The purpose of proposed §10.33(a)(5) is to encourage practitioners who are suffering from a mental impairment to seek and obtain assistance or treatment. See, e.g., DC Legal Ethics Opinion 377.[26]

Proposed Circular 230 §10.33(a)(5) reads as follows:

(5) Identifying, evaluating, and addressing a mental impairment, whether chronic or temporary, arising out of or related to age, substance abuse, a physical or mental health condition, or other circumstance that may have an adverse impact on a tax practitioner’s ability to provide the highest quality representation of a client before the Internal Revenue Service.[27]

Best Practices Related to Business Continuity and Succession Plans

The IRS proposes to add a best practices discussion of firms preparing business continuity and succession plans. The preamble states:

Proposed §10.33(a)(6) would provide that it is a best practice for practitioners to establish a business continuity and succession plan that includes procedures and safeguards related to both the cessation of a practitioner’s practice or the occurrence of an outside event, such as a natural disaster or cyberattack. Business continuity and succession planning are essential because they proactively protect clients in the event of a practitioner’s death or disability or from the occurrence of an unforeseen event.[28]

Proposed Circular 230 §10.33(a)(6) reads as follows:

(6) Establishing a business continuity and succession plan that addresses procedures and safeguards in the event of the sale or cessation of the practitioner’s practice, the practitioner’s death or disability, or the occurrence of extraordinary events such as a natural disaster, cyberattack, or pandemic.[29]

Standards for Provision of Written Tax Advice

The IRS proposes a number of revisions to Circular 230 §10.37 governing the providing of written tax advice to clients. The preamble describes the changes as follows:

Current §10.37 provides basic principles to which all practitioners must adhere when giving written tax advice. Circular 230 was amended in 2014 to eliminate the covered opinion rules (in former §10.35) and replace them with broad standards for written tax advice under a current §10.37. See TD 9668. Proposed §10.37 would maintain these principles-based standards and make minor wording changes. Current §10.37(d) defines a “Federal tax matter,” for purposes of that section, as the application or interpretation of a revenue provision defined under section 6110(i)(1)(B) of the Code, any provision of law impacting a person's obligations under the internal revenue laws and regulations, and any other law or regulation administered by the IRS. Proposed §10.37 would amend this definition of a Federal tax matter under proposed §10.37(d) to clarify that it encompasses any transaction, plan, arrangement, or other matter (whether prospective or completed), which is of the type that the IRS determines has the potential for tax avoidance or evasion.

This proposed change aligns standards for written tax advice under proposed §10.37 more closely with the statutory language of 31 U.S.C. 330(e), which acknowledges that the Treasury Department may “impose standards applicable to the rendering of written advice with respect to any entity, transaction plan or arrangement, or other plan or arrangement, which is of a type which the Secretary determines as having a potential for tax avoidance or evasion.”

Current §10.37(c)(1) imposes a reasonable practitioner standard, considering all of the facts and circumstances, to determine whether a practitioner has complied with the written advice standards under this section. Current §10.37(c)(2) imposes the same reasonable practitioner standard in the case of an opinion the practitioner knows or has reason to know will be used by another person to promote, market, or recommend to one or more taxpayers a partnership or other entity, investment plan, or arrangement a significant purpose of which is the avoidance or evasion of any tax (Significant Purpose Transactions). Current §10.37(c)(2) adds that, under the facts-and-circumstances analysis for Significant Purpose Transactions, emphasis will be “given to the additional risk caused by the practitioner's lack of knowledge of the taxpayer's particular circumstances.” Considering a practitioner's knowledge of the taxpayer's circumstances is generally relevant to whether a practitioner has satisfied written tax advice standards. Therefore, the proposed regulations would remove paragraph (c)(2) in current §10.37 and proposed §10.37(c) would include consideration of the practitioner's knowledge of the client's particular circumstances under the reasonable practitioner standard.[30]

The proposed revisions to Circular 230 §10.37 are provided below:

§10.37 Requirements for written tax advice.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) The practitioner knows or reasonably should know that the other person is not competent or lacks the necessary qualifications to provide the advice, or is unaware of all relevant facts and circumstances; or

* * * * *

(c) Standard of review. In evaluating whether a practitioner giving written advice concerning one or more Federal tax matters complied with the requirements of this section, the Commissioner, or delegate, will apply a reasonable practitioner standard, considering all facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, the scope of the engagement, the practitioner’s knowledge of the client’s particular circumstances, and the type and specificity of the advice sought by the client.

(d) Federal tax matter. A Federal tax matter, as used in this section, is any transaction, plan, arrangement, or other matter (whether prospective or completed), which is of a type that the Internal Revenue Service determines as having a potential for tax avoidance or evasion, concerning the application or interpretation of—

* * * * *

(2) Any provision of law impacting a person's obligations under the internal revenue laws and regulations, including but not limited to the person's liability to pay tax, ability to take a specific return position (whether prospective or completed), or obligation to file returns; or

* * * * *

(e) Applicability date. This section is applicable beginning on [date 30 days after date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register].[31]

Expansion of Application of Bar on Negotiating Government Checks to Clients to Include Other Forms of Payments

The proposed regulations would expand the prohibition on a practitioner negotiating checks from the Government to the client to cover other forms of payment. The preamble describes these changes as follows:

Current §10.31 provides that a practitioner may not endorse or otherwise negotiate any check issued to a client by the Government in respect of a Federal tax liability, including directing or accepting payment by any means, electronic or otherwise, into an account owned or controlled by the practitioner or any firm or other entity with which the practitioner is associated. When it was last amended in 2014, this regulation was revised to clarify that the prohibition on practitioner negotiation of taxpayer tax refunds applied to the electronic environment in which both the IRS and practitioners operated. Proposed §10.31 would maintain this prohibition and broaden it to apply to all electronic payments to clients with respect to a Federal tax liability, including prepaid debit cards, phone or mobile payments, or other forms of electronic payments, even if that payment method is not currently used by the Treasury Department. These changes acknowledge the evolving electronic environment in which tax refunds and other payments to taxpayers are processed through a variety of means.[32]

The revised Circular 230 §10.31 would read as follows:

§10.31 Negotiation of payments to clients.

(a) In general. A practitioner may not endorse or otherwise negotiate or transfer any paper or electronic check, prepaid or debit card, phone or mobile payment, or other form of payment issued to a client by the government in respect of a Federal tax liability.

Negotiate or transfer includes directing or accepting payment by any means, electronic or otherwise, into an account owned, controlled by, or held for the benefit of the practitioner or any firm or other entity with which the practitioner is associated.

(b) Applicability date. This section is applicable beginning on [date 30 days after date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register].[33]

Procedures for Enrolled Agents and Enrolled Retirement Plan Agents

The proposed regulations would modify procedures for enrolled agents (EAs) and grandfathered enrolled retirement plan agents (ERPAs).

As the IRS, due to the lack of demand, is no longer offering the exam to allow individuals to become ERPAs, the proposed regulations clarify this status. The first change is to be made to Circular 230 §10.3(e)(1) as described in the preamble:

Current §10.3(e)(1) provides that enrolled retirement plan agents (ERPAs) may practice before the IRS. Current §10.4(b) authorizes the IRS to grant status as ERPAs to individuals who demonstrate special competence in qualified retirement plan matters by passing a written examination and who have not engaged in any conduct that would justify suspension or disbarment under Circular 230. The IRS stopped offering the Enrolled Retirement Plan Agent Special Enrollment Examination (ERPA-SEE) on February 12, 2016, and no longer accepts applications for new enrollment as an ERPA. Because of a steady decline in ERPA-SEE test-takers, the cost to administer the ERPA-SEE no longer warranted offering the test. See 83 FR 58202, published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2018. Individuals who had passed the ERPA-SEE before February 12, 2016, and are currently enrolled as ERPAs can maintain their status. Therefore, the proposed regulations would clarify that ERPAs who passed the ERPA-SEE prior to February 12, 2016, remain authorized to practice before the IRS if they continue to pay the annual user fee described under 26 CFR 300.10(b) and complete the continuing education described in §10.6(e). The proposed regulations would also remove current §10.4(b), which describes the process to become an ERPA by special examination.[34]

Similarly, the IRS is revising Circular 230 §10.5 to remove provisions applicable to ERPAs:

Current §10.5 includes ERPAs in the description of application procedures to become a practitioner under Circular 230. Because the IRS no longer offers the special enrollment examination to become an ERPA and no longer accepts applications for new enrollment as an ERPA, these procedures are no longer relevant and references to ERPAs would be removed under proposed §10.5. The renewal period and procedures for existing ERPAs remains unchanged under current §10.6.[35]

The IRS is proposing to remove the option for a former IRS employee to attain EA status without having to take the EA exam. The preamble describes the following revisions to Circular 230 §10.4(d):

Current §10.4(d) provides that a former IRS employee, based on past service and technical experience in the IRS, may be granted enrollment as an EA or ERPA without testing if certain criteria are met. There is no statutory requirement that the IRS provide this exemption to former employees and administering requests for this waiver has consumed substantial IRS resources. Accordingly, the proposed regulations would eliminate the opportunity for former IRS employees to apply for a waiver of enrollment requirements as of 30 days after the date these regulations are published in the Federal Register as final regulations. Applications from former IRS employees submitted on or before that date would be processed according to the procedures under current §10.4(d).[36]

The IRS is also proposing to revise Circular 230 §10.6(b) to issue various documents to confirm an individual’s enrollment as an EA or ERPA. The preamble states:

Current §10.6(b) states that the IRS will provide confirmation of enrollment to EAs and ERPAs by issuing a registration card or certificate. Instead of specifying the form of confirmation, proposed §10.6(b) would provide that the IRS will issue a document, which may be an enrollment card or other document. This revision would give the IRS flexibility as to the form of enrollment confirmation provided to practitioners in the future without requiring an amendment to the regulations.[37]

Effect of Disbarment, Suspension, or Censure

The IRS proposes adding provisions to current §10.79, along with renumbering that section to §10.99. The preamble discusses the changes as follows:

In 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada held in Sexton v. Hawkins, 119 A.F.T.R. 2d 2017-1187 (D. Nev. 2017), that the Treasury Department and the IRS did not have jurisdiction to investigate whether suspended practitioners have violated the terms of their suspension because suspended individuals were not considered practitioners under Circular 230. The Treasury Department and the IRS disagree with this holding. The IRS has continuing jurisdiction to investigate suspended practitioners under 31 U.S.C. 330(c), which provides authority to suspend, disbar, or censure practitioners under Circular 230. The ability to investigate compliance by practitioners with the terms of their censure or suspension is critical to ensure compliance and maintain the integrity of practitioner discipline under Circular 230. Practitioners who do not comply with requests for information from OPR or who violate the terms of their suspension may face further sanctions, such as monetary penalties or disbarment.

Proposed §10.99(e) would clarify that suspended practitioners remain practitioners under Circular 230 for the purposes of investigating and acting on any violation of a suspension or any violation of the law or regulations governing practice before the IRS while suspended. It is also important to the enforcement of 31 U.S.C. 330 and the integrity of Circular 230 for the IRS to ensure that individuals who are not authorized to practice before the IRS, either because they have been disbarred or because they do not have the required credentials, do not claim authority to practice. Proposed §10.99(f), therefore, would clarify that the IRS has jurisdiction to make inquiries to determine whether an individual has wrongly held themselves out as a practitioner.[38]

The proposed revisions to §10.99 are as follows:

§10.99 Effect of disbarment, suspension, or censure.

* * * * *

(e) Jurisdiction to investigate compliance with censure, suspension, or disqualification. A practitioner or appraiser who is censured, suspended, or disqualified under §10.61(a), §10.70, or §10.102 will be considered a practitioner or appraiser for the purpose of investigating whether the practitioner or appraiser is in compliance with the terms of their censure, suspension, or disqualification. Censured, suspended, or disqualified practitioners or appraisers may face additional sanctions or disbarment for any violation.

(f) Jurisdiction to investigate disbarred practitioners and non-practitioners. The IRS may investigate a practitioner disbarred under §10.70 or a non-practitioner to determine whether they are wrongly holding themselves out as practitioners.

(g) Applicability date. This section is applicable beginning on [date 30 days after date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register].[39]

Expedited Suspensions

The IRS proposes making a number of changes to the expedited suspension procedures under Circular 230. The preamble explains:

Current §10.81 provides guidance on how practitioners can petition OPR for reinstatement, but it does not address practitioners or appraisers who have been suspended or disqualified through the expedited procedures under current §10.82. Moreover, while current §10.82 authorizes the immediate suspension of a practitioner who has engaged in certain conduct, it does not include expedited procedures for appraisers or address the voluntary forfeiture of a license or certification by practitioners or appraisers. Current §10.81, which is proposed to be redesignated as §10.101, would allow practitioners or appraisers who have received an expedited suspension or disqualification to petition for reinstatement at any time upon a showing of good cause.

The proposed changes to current §10.82, which is proposed to be redesignated as §10.102, explain that practitioners can establish good cause by showing that the conditions giving rise to their expedited suspension or disqualification no longer apply. For example, the restoration of a suspended license, the reversal of a conviction, or the removal of a sanction may be sufficient to show good cause. Proposed §10.102 would also extend expedited disciplinary proceedings to appraisers who have had a license or certification revoked or suspended by a state licensing or certification board or who have voluntarily forfeited their license or certification. Finally, proposed §10.102(e)(1)(iii) would clarify that, when a practitioner or appraiser responds to a show cause order but does not request a conference, the IRS will issue a written notice of expedited suspension immediately following consideration of a practitioner or appraiser's response.

Proposed §10.102(a)(7)(i) and (ii), redesignated from §10.82(b)(5)(i) and (ii), would only update the cross-references in those provisions. They are otherwise not proposed to be revised, though they are set out in their entirety below for the convenience of the reader. The Treasury Department and IRS do not seek comments on the substance of these provisions, and any such comments would be outside the scope of the proposed regulations.[40]

Proposed Circular 230 §10.101 (formerly 10.81) would read as follows:

§10.101 Petition for reinstatement.

(a) In general. A practitioner disbarred or suspended under §10.70, or an appraiser disqualified under §10.61, may petition for reinstatement before the Internal Revenue Service after the expiration of 5 years following such disbarment, suspension, or disqualification (or immediately following the expiration of the suspension or disqualification period, if shorter than 5 years). A practitioner or appraiser suspended or disqualified under §10.102 may petition for reinstatement at any time upon a showing of good cause as described in §10.102(f)(2). Reinstatement will not be granted unless the Internal Revenue Service determines that the petitioner is not likely to engage thereafter in conduct contrary to the regulations in this part, and that granting such reinstatement would not be contrary to the public interest.

(b) Applicability date. This section is applicable beginning on [date 30 days after date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register].[41]

The proposed changes to §10.102 (which is currently §10.82) read as follows:

§10.102 Expedited suspension or disqualification.

(a) When applicable. The expedited suspension procedures in this section are initiated by issuing the show cause order described under paragraph (d) of this section. A show cause order will be issued to any practitioner or appraiser for whom paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), or (7) of this section is true within the 5 years prior to the date that the show cause order was issued. The expedited procedures described in this section may be used to suspend the practitioner from practice before the Internal Revenue Service, disqualify an appraiser from presenting evidence or testimony in any administrative proceeding before the Department of the Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service, or find that any appraisal made by a disqualified appraiser after the effective date of disqualification will not have probative effect in any administrative proceeding before the Department of the Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service.

(1) A practitioner has a license to practice as an attorney, certified public accountant, or actuary suspended or revoked for cause (not including failure to pay a professional licensing fee) by any authority or court, agency, body, or board described in §10.50(a)(10).

(2) An appraiser has a license or certification to conduct appraisals revoked or suspended by any state licensing or certification board.

(3) A practitioner or appraiser has voluntarily forfeited a practitioner’s or appraiser’s license or certification after any authority described in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section initiated an investigation of, or proceeding against, the practitioner or appraiser for alleged violations of applicable standards or rules of conduct for which the practitioner’s or appraiser’s license or certification could be suspended or revoked for cause, if proven. Voluntary forfeiture includes retirement, resignation, consensual permanent inactivation, or similar action.

(4) A practitioner has, irrespective of whether an appeal has been taken, been convicted of any crime under title 26, United States Code, any crime involving dishonesty or breach of trust, or any felony for which the conduct involved renders the practitioner unfit to practice before the Internal Revenue Service.

(5) A practitioner has violated conditions imposed on the practitioner pursuant to §10.99(d).

(6) A practitioner has been sanctioned by a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in a civil or criminal proceeding (including suits for injunctive relief), relating to any client’s tax liability or relating to the practitioner's own tax liability, for—

(i) Instituting or maintaining proceedings primarily for delay;

(ii) Advancing frivolous or groundless arguments; or

(iii) Failing to pursue available administrative remedies.

(7) A practitioner has demonstrated a pattern of willful disreputable conduct by--

(i) Failing to make an annual Federal tax return, in violation of the Federal tax laws, during 4 of the 5 tax years immediately preceding the institution of a proceeding under paragraph (b) of this section and remains noncompliant with any of the practitioner's Federal tax filing obligations at the time the notice of suspension is issued under paragraph (e) of this section; or

(ii) Failing to make a return required more frequently than annually, in violation of the Federal tax laws, during 5 of the 7 tax periods immediately preceding the institution of a proceeding under paragraph (b) of this section and remains noncompliant with any of the practitioner's Federal tax filing obligations at the time the notice of suspension is issued under paragraph (e) of this section.

(b) Expedited suspension or disqualification procedures. A suspension or disqualification under this section will be proposed by a show cause order that names the respondent, is signed by an authorized representative of the Internal Revenue Service under §10.89(a)(1), and is served according to the rules set forth in §10.83(a). The show cause order must give a plain and concise description of the allegations that constitute the basis for the proposed suspension or disqualification. The show cause order must notify the respondent—

* * * * *

(2) That an expedited suspension or disqualification decision by default may be rendered if the respondent fails to file a response as required;

* * * * *

(4) That the respondent may be suspended or disqualified either immediately following the expiration of the period within which a response must be filed or, if a conference is requested, immediately following the conference.

* * * * *

(e) Suspension or disqualification—

(1) In general. The Commissioner, or delegate, may suspend the respondent from practice before the Internal Revenue Service or disqualify an appraiser from presenting evidence or testimony in any administrative proceeding before the Department of the Treasury or Internal Revenue Service by a written notice of expedited suspension or disqualification immediately following:

(i) The expiration of the period within which a response to a show cause order must be filed if the respondent does not file a response as required by paragraph (c) of this section;

(ii) The conference described in paragraph (d) of this section if the Internal Revenue Service finds that the respondent is described in paragraph (a) of this section;

(iii) If the respondent has not requested a conference, upon consideration of any response described in paragraph (c) of this section; or

(iv) The respondent's failure to appear, either personally or through an authorized representative, at a conference scheduled by the Internal Revenue Service under paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) Duration of suspension or disqualification. A suspension or disqualification under this section will commence on the date that the written notice of expedited suspension or disqualification is served on the practitioner or appraiser, either personally or through an authorized representative. The suspension or disqualification will remain effective until the earlier of:

(i) The date the Internal Revenue Service lifts the suspension or disqualification upon receipt of a petition for reinstatement under §10.101 and after determining that the practitioner or appraiser has shown good cause based on all the relevant facts and circumstances why the suspension or disqualification should be lifted and the individual reinstated to practice; or

(ii) The date the suspension or disqualification is lifted or otherwise modified by an Administrative Law Judge or the Secretary of the Treasury, or delegate deciding appeals, in a proceeding referred to in paragraph (f) of this section and instituted under §10.80.

(3) Good cause. For purposes of this paragraph (e), a suspended practitioner or disqualified appraiser may show good cause when, for example, the individual was suspended or disqualified:

(i) Under paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, and the individual’s license or certificate to practice as an attorney, certified public accountant, actuary, or appraiser has been restored;

(ii) Under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and the conviction was reversed on appeal, with no retrial underway or pending;

(iii) Under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, and the individual is no longer in violation of the conditions imposed on the individual under §10.99(d) and the individual either fully satisfied the conditions or is compliant with them if they are still in effect;

(iv) Under paragraph (a)(6) of this section, and the individual has satisfied any terms of the court-imposed sanction, such as payment of a monetary sanction or completion of mandated hours of pro bono work; has not been sanctioned again for the same or substantially similar conduct by a court or any other authority described in §10.50(a)(10); and has ceased the conduct that resulted in the sanction (for example, ceased advancing frivolous or groundless arguments in matters before the Internal Revenue Service and courts or other tribunals); or

(v) Under paragraph (a)(7) of this section, and the individual is fully compliant with the individual’s tax filing and payment obligations, including any installment agreement or other payment arrangement entered into with the Internal Revenue Service.

(f) Demand for §10.80 proceeding. If the Internal Revenue Service suspends a practitioner or disqualifies an appraiser under the expedited suspension procedures described in this section, the practitioner or appraiser may demand that the Internal Revenue Service institute a proceeding under §10.80 and issue the complaint described in §10.82. The demand must be in writing, specifically reference the suspension or disqualification action under §10.82, and be made within 2 years from the date on which the practitioner's suspension or appraiser’s disqualification commenced. The Internal Revenue Service must issue a complaint demanded under this paragraph (f) within 60 calendar days of receiving the demand. If the Internal Revenue Service does not issue such complaint within 60 days of receiving the demand, the suspension or disqualification is lifted automatically. The preceding sentence does not, however, preclude the Commissioner, or delegate, from instituting a regular proceeding under §10.80.

(g) Applicability date. This section is applicable beginning on [date 30 days after date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register].[42]

[1] REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024, https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-29371.pdf

[2] Section 10.114 of the proposed revisions to Circular 230.

[3] REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[4] REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[5] REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[6] REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[7] Proposed Circular 230 §10.8, December 20, 2024

[8] REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[9] Proposed Circular 230 §10.22 revisions

[10] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[11] Proposed Circular 230 §10.34 revisions

[12] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[13] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[14] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[15] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[16] New Proposed Circular 230 §10.51, REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[17] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[18] Revised Proposed Circular 230 §10.50 (formerly §10.50), REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[19] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[20] New Proposed Circular 230 §10.33(a)(4), REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[21] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[22] Proposed §10.35(a), REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[23] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[24] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[25] Proposed §10.21, REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[26] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[27] Proposed §10.33(a)(5), REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[28] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[29] Proposed §10.33(a)(6), REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[30] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[31] Proposed §10.37, REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[32] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[33] Proposed §10.31, REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[34] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[35] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[36] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[37] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[38] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[39] Proposed revisions to Circular 230 §10.99 (currently §10.79), REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[40] Preamble to REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[41] Proposed revisions to Circular 230 §10.101 (currently §10.81), REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024

[42] Proposed revisions to Circular 230 §10.102 (currently §10.82), REG-116610-20, December 20, 2024