The case of Sexton v. Hawkins, US DC Nevada, Case No. 2:13-cv-00893 asked the question of whether the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility had jurisdiction over a disbarred attorney who was suspended from practice before the IRS for actions related to return preparation and writing a tax memorandum that took place during his suspension period.  The disbarment and suspension took place after Mr. Sexton plead guilty to four counts of mail fraud and one count of money laundering.

Despite being disbarred and suspended, the plaintiff in the case continued to offer tax services.  In particular, he offered services to a Ms. Kern for whom he assisted in preparing her 2010 and 2011 income tax returns and whom he offered to send a written memorandum analyzing her tax options. 

Image copyright photoman / 123RF Stock Photo

The AICPA ended up on the losing side of their case challenging the IRS's program to grant a credential to certain unenrolled preparers when the case returned to the US District Court for the DIstrict of Columbia on remand. (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants v. IRS et al.; No. 1:14-cv-01190, USDC DC, 8/3/16)

The IRS initially was successful in having the AICPA lawsuit dismissed.  The ruling (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants v. IRS, et al., DC Dist Col, 114 AFTR 2d ¶2014-5386) held that the AICPA did not have standing to challenge the program.  However the ruling was overturned on appeal to the DC Circuit (Docket No. 14-5309) with the appellate Court finding that the AICPA had shown the issuance of this registration could cause an actual or imminent increase in competition from CPAs due to the new government program, with the listing allowing them to compete more effectively against CPAs and potentially take business away. Thus, the panel found, the AICPA had competitor standing to challenge the program.