U.S. Code
»
Title 26
» Subtitle Subtitle F— Procedure and Administration › Chapter CHAPTER 77— MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
26 U.S.C. § 7525
Confidentiality privileges relating to taxpayer communications
(a) Uniform application to taxpayer communications with federally authorized practitioners(1) General ruleWith respect to tax advice, the same common law protections of confidentiality which apply to a communication between a taxpayer and an attorney shall also apply to a communication between a taxpayer and any federally authorized tax practitioner to the extent the communication would be considered a privileged communication if it were between a taxpayer and an attorney.
(2) LimitationsParagraph (1) may only be asserted in—(A) any noncriminal tax matter before the Internal Revenue Service; and(B) any noncriminal tax proceeding in Federal court brought by or against the United States.(3) DefinitionsFor purposes of this subsection—(A) Federally authorized tax practitionerThe term “federally authorized tax practitioner” means any individual who is authorized under Federal law to practice before the Internal Revenue Service if such practice is subject to Federal regulation under section 330 of title 31, United States Code.
(B) Tax adviceThe term “tax advice” means advice given by an individual with respect to a matter which is within the scope of the individual’s authority to practice described in subparagraph (A).
(b) Section not to apply to communications regarding tax sheltersThe privilege under subsection (a) shall not apply to any written communication which is—(1) between a federally authorized tax practitioner and—(A) any person,(B) any director, officer, employee, agent, or representative of the person, or(C) any other person holding a capital or profits interest in the person, and(2) in connection with the promotion of the direct or indirect participation of the person in any tax shelter (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(C)(ii)).(Added Pub. L. 105–206, title III, § 3411(a), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 750; amended Pub. L. 108–357, title VIII, § 813(a), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1581.)Editorial NotesAmendments2004—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–357 amended heading and text of subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “The privilege under subsection (a) shall not apply to any written communication between a federally authorized tax practitioner and a director, shareholder, officer, or employee, agent, or representative of a corporation in connection with the promotion of the direct or indirect participation of such corporation in any tax shelter (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(C)(iii)).”
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2004 AmendmentPub. L. 108–357, title VIII, § 813(b), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1581, provided that: “The amendment made by this section [amending this section] shall apply to communications made on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 22, 2004].”
Effective DatePub. L. 105–206, title III, § 3411(c), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 751, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting this section] shall apply to communications made on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 22, 1998].”
Notes of Decisions
United States v. BDO Seidman, LLP (2007)
ca7 · cites it 16×
“BDO further asserted that a number of the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege, the tax practitioner privilege under 26 U.S.C. § 7525 (a) or work product protection.”
United States v. Kpmg LLP (2002)
dcd · cites it 14×
“LEGAL STANDARD KPMG has asserted the following privileges: (1) 26 U.S.C. § 7525 Confidentiality Privilege; (2) Attorney-Client Privilege; (3) Attorney Work Product Privilege; and (4) “It’s Own Privilege.”
United States v. Kpmg LLP (2004)
dcd · cites it 9×
“Counsel for the Petitioner represented to the Court that the two main issues remaining for the Court to decide are (1) whether KPMG must release the identity of one of its clients who allegedly participated in a “CLAS” tax shelter and (2) issues surrounding the 26 U.S.C. § 7525…”
United States v. Textron Inc. & Subsidiaries (2009)
ca1 · cites it 2×
“It also ruled that insofar as the Textron-prepared work papers might otherwise be protected by attorney-client privilege, or the counterpart tax practitioner privilege for non-lawyers engaged in tax practice, see 26 U.S.C. § 7525 (2006), those privileges had been waived when…”
United States v. Textron Inc. and Subsidiaries (2007)
rid · cites it 4×
“In this case, Textron argues that its tax accrual workpapers are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the tax practitioner-client privilege created by 26 U.S.C. § 7525 , and the work product privilege.”
Steven Menzies v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP (2019)
ca7
“2009) (discussing statutory tax-practitioner privi- lege that parallels attorney-client privilege and is subject to exceptions for crime and fraud, as well as promotion of tax shelters, 26 U.S.C. § 7525 ). The majority’s pleading requirement is excessive because it discounts the…”
United States v. BDO Seidman (2003)
ca7 · cites it 4×
“See 26 U.S.C. § 7525 . For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s denial of the clients’ motions to intervene.”
Valero Energy Corp. v. United States (2009)
ca7 · cites it 2×
“” 26 U.S.C. § 7525 (a)(1). The government countered by arguing that the scope of the summons was appropriate and that even if the tax practitioner-client privilege applied, the documents were discoverable since they were made in connection with the promotion of a tax shelter, a…”
Schaeffler v. United States (2015)
ca2
“Title 26 U.S.C. § 7525 (a)(1) provides that "the same common law protections of confidentiality which apply to a communication between a taxpayer and an attorney shall also apply to a communication between a taxpayer and any federally authorized tax practitioner to the extent…”
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.