31 C.F.R. § 10.33

Best practices for tax advisors

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Best practices. Tax advisors should provide clients with the highest quality representation concerning Federal tax issues by adhering to best practices in providing advice and in preparing or assisting in the preparation of a submission to the Internal Revenue Service. In addition to compliance with the standards of practice provided elsewhere in this part, best practices include the following:

(1) Communicating clearly with the client regarding the terms of the engagement. For example, the advisor should determine the client's expected purpose for and use of the advice and should have a clear understanding with the client regarding the form and scope of the advice or assistance to be rendered.

(2) Establishing the facts, determining which facts are relevant, evaluating the reasonableness of any assumptions or representations, relating the applicable law (including potentially applicable judicial doctrines) to the relevant facts, and arriving at a conclusion supported by the law and the facts.

(3) Advising the client regarding the import of the conclusions reached, including, for example, whether a taxpayer may avoid accuracy-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code if a taxpayer acts in reliance on the advice.

(4) Acting fairly and with integrity in practice before the Internal Revenue Service.

(b) Procedures to ensure best practices for tax advisors. Tax advisors with responsibility for overseeing a firm's practice of providing advice concerning Federal tax issues or of preparing or assisting in the preparation of submissions to the Internal Revenue Service should take reasonable steps to ensure that the firm's procedures for all members, associates, and employees are consistent with the best practices set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.

[T.D. 9011, 67 FR 48771, July 26, 2002, as amended by T.D. 9165, 69 FR 75841, Dec. 20, 2004]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1984–2011 · leading case: George v. Zmuda & Walburga Zmuda v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 731 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

George v. Zmuda & Walburga Zmuda v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 731 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1984). “See 31 C.F.R. 10.33, 10.51. These require the promoter to warn the investor of all possible tax consequences should the scheme later be held invalid.”

James P. Thomas & Mary Lou Thomas v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 792 F.2d 1256 (4th Cir. 1986). “The taxpayers assert that an analysis of the program’s tax consequences is required by 31 C.F.R. § 10.33 (1985), and that they are being penalized for doing what the law requires.”

Gary James Joslin v. Sec'y of the Dep't of the Treasury & the United States of Am., 832 F.2d 132 (10th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “In his complaint, Joslin challenges the constitutionality of 31 C.F.R. §§ 10.33 , 10.-51, and 10.52. § 10.”

Joslin v. Sec'y of Dep't of Treasury, 616 F. Supp. 1023 (D. Utah 1985). · cites it 4× “Those regulations are set forth in 31 C.F.R. § 10.33 (1984) and 31 C.F.R. § 10.”

Settles v. United States (In Re Settles), 452 B.R. 637 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2011). · cites it 2× “22 (a), (b) and (c), as well as 31 C.F.R. § 10.33 (a)(3) and (a)(4) and § 10.”

Fortson v. Winstead, McGuire, Sechrest & Minick, 961 F.2d 469 (4th Cir. 1992). “” 31 C.F.R. § 10.33 (a)(l)(ii). More fundamentally, even if Winstead’s conduct were somehow inconsistent with the ABA or Treasury standards, we are unwilling to use these standards to establish a legal duty of disclosure.”

Abrams & Wofsy v. Renaissance Inv. Corp., 820 F. Supp. 1519 (N.D. Ga. 1993). “31 C.F.R. § 10.33 (a)(l)(i)-(ii) (1991; not revised since 1984).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.