The beneficial ownership reporting requirement established by the Corporate Transparency Act has created a fair amount of chaos concerning whether providing reporting services to clients is the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). While some state bar associations have come down on one side or the other as to whether certain types of reporting are UPL, the Treasury offers no clear guidance. What the IRS has made clear recently is that Circular 230 ethical obligations extend to matters beyond what the Loving case determined was “practice before the IRS.”
Editor’s Pick: Tax Planner Faces Malpractice Claims Over Decades-Old Tax Advice—What Went Wrong?
In a case that every tax professional should take note of, the prominent law firm Sidley Austin LLP finds itself defending against claims that it provided faulty tax advice over two decades ago, leading to massive IRS liabilities for a family. The plaintiffs, the Cáceres family, are seeking to recover $7 million after settling with the IRS, claiming Sidley’s advice on a complex asset liquidation set them up for disaster. The kicker? The lawsuit was filed over 25 years after the advice was given. So, how are the plaintiffs still able to pursue the case? It all boils down to a claim of fraud—and how that could toll the statute of limitations.