Contents
- 1 FBAR Lawyers
- 2 First, Is the Attorney a Board-Certified Tax Specialist?
- 3 Is a CPA ‘Board’ the Same as a Board-Certified Tax Lawyer Specialist?
- 4 American Bar Association Article About Attorney Experts
- 5 How Long Has the Attorney Been Licensed?
- 6 Are They a Board-Certified Tax Law Specialist?
- 7 Offshore Disclosure Does Not Involve Litigation
- 8 Case Leader or Just a Cog in the Wheel?
- 9 Dual-Licensed as an EA or CPA
- 10 Knowingly Going Streamlined When Willful
- 11 Not Completing the Submission Process
- 12 Intentionally Underreporting Client Assets or Income
- 13 Quiet Disclosure
- 14 Late Filing Penalties May Be Reduced or Avoided
- 15 Current Year vs. Prior Year Non-Compliance
- 16 Avoid False Offshore Disclosure Submissions (Willful vs Non-Willful)
- 17 Need Help Finding an Experienced Offshore Tax Attorney?
- 18 Golding & Golding: About Our International Tax Law Firm
FBAR Lawyers
Ever since the Internal Revenue Service increased its enforcement of offshore disclosure and compliance matters, many less-experienced attorneys have jumped in the mix, making false representations about their experience — and leading taxpayers astray. And, when these attorneys take on cases that they are not experienced enough to handle, it can result in professional malpractice. Unfortunately, when an attorney commits professional malpractice in the offshore disclosure world, it can have a significant impact on the client who may have been goaded into submitting to one type of IRS foreign disclosure program when in fact they did not qualify and/or should have submitted to a different program. First, let’s look at a few ways that taxpayers can best select an offshore disclosure lawyer. Then, let’s look at what causes professional malpractice in offshore disclosure-type cases. *Beware of law firms falsely claiming to have Board-Certified tax law attorney specialists on staff.First, Is the Attorney a Board-Certified Tax Specialist?
Becoming a Board-Certified Tax Specialist is a tough feat — California for example has only certified ~350 attorneys as ‘Board-Certified in Tax’ and most states have significantly fewer specialists (since fewer attorneys are practicing their states). The specialist exam for Tax specifically, is known for being extremely difficult. For example, in California, there are more than 200,000 attorneys in California, and tens of thousands of them practice in some area of tax. Whether they are full-time tax attorneys or they practice tax law as part of a bigger practice such as estate planning, real estate, divorce, corporate and business law, or acting as outside counsel — tax law is everywhere.Is a CPA ‘Board’ the Same as a Board-Certified Tax Lawyer Specialist?
While both CPAs and attorneys may handle tax matters, a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) or Enrolled Agent (EA) is not the same as a tax attorney. The roles of non-legal tax professionals (CPA and EA) are different than the role of an Attorney. Beyond these designations, some tax lawyers are also licensed as Board-Certified Tax Law Specialists, which means they are licensed by at least one State Bar’s Board of Legal Specialization. Recently, we have had taxpayers let us know that they had engaged in an initial consultation with a law firm that claims to have Board-Certified Tax Lawyer Specialists on staff — only to learn that there are no attorneys at the firm who are licensed as Board-Certified Tax Attorney Specialists by any State Bar in the United States. The firms claim they are “Board-Certified Tax Law Specialists” because they may have a CPA on staff. Preposterous. The only way to become a “Board-Certified Tax Law Specialist” is for an attorney to complete additional years of specialized tax education, pass a rigorous examination, and officially receive the designation from the State Bar. Many CPAs have no background at all in tax and just because a lawyer obtains a CPA designation does not mean they can call themselves “Board-Certified.”American Bar Association Article About Attorney Experts
Back in 2013, the American Bar Association published a great article “Think Twice Before Calling Yourself an Expert“ about how the curent theme is that attorneys with about 10-15 years of experience, and a focus on one specific area of law, will suddenly start referring to themselves as experts – and how it is very dangerous territory for the client and attorney. Here are some of the key highlights:-
“You have been in practice for 15 years. After starting out as a general practitioner, you found your caseload to be largely made up of employment law matters and after five years decided to limit your practice to that area. You have family who are union members, and word-of-mouth advertising has been positive.
-
Results from your work have been satisfying to clients, and your familiarity with the various laws relevant to employment matters is now solid. You teach a course at a local law school on employment law and frequently give workshops and guest lectures at seminars on the same topic. Can you now say you are an “expert” in employment law on your website?
-
-
“You should think twice before doing so.”
-
“Put another way, use of the term expert is a subjective claim that leaves much to the reader’s imagination. In doing so, it can easily cross the line into false and misleading communication. State bar ethics opinions are unanimous on this point….”
-
-
Risk of Discipline?
-
“Lawyers have been disciplined for making misleading claims of expertise. See In re PRB Dockett No.2002.093, 177 Vt. 629, 868 A2d. 709 (2005) (affirming discipline imposed upon lawyer who advertised in the local Yellow Pages as The Injury Experts and used a list captioned by the words “We are experts in” and listed several areas of law; court noted statements carried an “ implicit statement of superiority with a serious potential to mislead the consumer”); In re Wells, 392 S.C. 371, 709 S.E.2d 644 (2011) (lawyer publicly reprimanded and fined for, among other things, making claims of expertise in advertisements without having been certified as an expert); and In re Richmond’s case 152 N.H. 155, 872 A.2d 1023 N.H. (2005) (lawyer suspended for misrepresenting that he had expertise in securities law).”
-
