Leaderboard

While we now look back at over-use of “Circular 230” warnings, it’s worth recalling why it happened. 1) The inconvenience, time, difficulty, and risk of analyzing why a writing isn’t a covered opinion would be disproportionate to the subject of the writing. 2) If a writing might be a covered opinion, it was practically impossible to obey the covered-opinion standards when the expected reader is not the practitioner’s client. 3) Recognizing those ideas, big law firms – and many non-professional businesses (see the next two points) – used warnings intended to meet an exception to the definition of a reliance opinion or a marketed opinion, two of the likelier kinds of covered opinion. 4) Many non-professional businesses used a warning because a lawyer employed by the business recognized that the business’ communications might include tax advice and the lawyer, as an individual, might be responsible for his or her compliance with 31 C.F.R. Part 10. 5) Many non-professional businesses used a warning because it made a communication look more “professional” or credible. 6) Although Treasury people expressed displeasure about over-cautious (and mind-numbing) “legending” of routine communications, they offered (until recently) no relief against the consequences of “guessing wrong”. To respond to PensionPro’s query, a service provider (to the extent that it does not rely on the proper practice of a lawyer, certified public accountant, enrolled agent, enrolled actuary, or enrolled retirement plan agent) might consider (if truthful) a general warning that it does not provide accounting, tax, or legal advice.