ethics ????

[momof3]

new client referred to me by current client. He contacted me and we did not discuss prior acct. Just sent in his stuff and the prior acct is a firm that I work for doing per diem. who do I need to disclose to, if anyone?

[BulldogTom]

Do you have an agreement with the per diem firm about its clients?

In other words - how much do you like working per diem for that firm.

If you were working for me and then taking in a client of mine on the side, I would make an assumption that you are pulling my clients. May not be the right assumption, but that would be my first thought.

You should either tell the new client no or go to the other firm and tell them what happened.

my 2 cents

Tom

Lodi, CA

[Daune/CA]

You did not persue this client. Sent to you by a satisfied client-legally. You may want to disclose to new client that you have done work for per diem firm, and that you felt they needed to know this before you do any work for them. If they are still willing to have you do their work, then proceed legally. (Document client trail for your own records)

[OldJack]

The very fact that you are questioning this relationship with the per diem firm and their client is exactly the reason you should contact the per diem firm and discuss this situation. Then, if the per diem firm has an objection, you should turn down the engagement with the new client. You should not need a client so bad that you have to terminate business relationships with other professionals.

[Jack from Ohio]

I agree with OldJack. I have a similar situation with my daytime job and my private practice. We have an agreement that if I have a new client that has ever been their client, or been contacted by them, I will decline to do their return.

In turn, they do not focus their advertising and promotions in my area. (40 miles away) This has worked well for over 6 years with no conflicts.

I value my relationship with my employer too much to violate this agreement. You can rest assured that if you do not discuss it with the per diem firm, some one will. Better you than the grapevine.

[Lion EA]

Don't we have to keep our clients' identities confidential? Not just names, but identifying information? How can he talk to his per diem firm about a client from his personal firm?

[PapaJoe]

He doesn't have to name the client. He just needs to let his per diem employer know that a client has approached him and discuss it from there in general terms.

[OldJack]

>>Don't we have to keep our clients' identities confidential? <<

Well.. we all do keep them confidential for our own protection, but that is not a requirement or a violation of any law or ethics that I know of.

[joelgilb]

Again Agree with Jack, and you should keep the client name confidential unless the client authorizes you to disclose it.

[Julie]

Uh...I think that's in Cir. 230. Don't remember the statute, but I'm sure we do have to keep that info confidential.

>>Don't we have to keep our clients' identities confidential? <<

Well.. we all do keep them confidential for our own protection, but that is not a requirement or a violation of any law or ethics that I know of.

[OldJack]

Uh...I think that's in Cir. 230. Don't remember the statute, but I'm sure we do have to keep that info confidential.

A quick look at Cir. 230 and I did not find any such requirement. Maybe you can check it out further.

[MontanaEA]

Oh for Pete's sake! Here.....

http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=188390,00.html

[grandmabee]

Oh for Pete's sake! Here.....

http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=188390,00.html

you guys make me chuckle. I can just here you say that.

[OldJack]

Oh for Pete's sake! And for crying out loud!!

That link to the IRS article is only about what the taxpayer written consent should include for "disclosure of information obtained during the return preparation process to activities directly related to the preparation of the return". That has nothing to do with the tax preparer simply telling someone the name of his clients.

[kcjenkins]

I agree with Jack, there is nothing at all that prohibits anyone from naming someone as a client, they are only prohibited from disclosing that client's tax information.

[Lion EA]

Wouldn't giving out the name of a client fall under the disclosure of information for OTHER than tax preparation rules and call for the client's signed consent prior to naming him?

So many of us worked for Block in the past. Block taught me to NOT mention the name of a client nor even enough identifying characteristics that someone could identify the client based on my description. When a receptionist in White Plains pilfered client credit card information, Block said they could not provide the police a list of clients who might be affected until the police returned with a warrant due to confidentiality.

[kcjenkins]

No, and your example just illustrates how wrong that is. If a client of mine is in danger because of something an employee of mine did, you better believe I'm going to cooperate with the police as fast as possible, to stop harm to my clients. How would you feel if you found out that a crime against you would have been blocked from happening, except that the employer of the thief delayed the police in apprehending him, or notifying you so that you could protect yourself or your assets?

[Lion EA]

Hey, that's why many of us are no longer with Block! However, they have a big legal department, so if they said it was against the law to reveal clients' names without a warrant, then that was probably true, at least at that time. It would've been to their advantage to make it go away as quickly as possible. They gained nothing by delaying and lost plenty due to bad press during the delay.

[David1980]

Hey, that's why many of us are no longer with Block! However, they have a big legal department, so if they said it was against the law to reveal clients' names without a warrant, then that was probably true, at least at that time.

No, all it shows, assuming legal team prevents them from doing wrong, is that it's not illegal to refuse to disclose the client list to police without a warrant. That doesn't mean they couldn't, just that they weren't forced to.

It would've been to their advantage to make it go away as quickly as possible. They gained nothing by delaying and lost plenty due to bad press during the delay.

I've seen local block stuff that makes me wonder if they have any idea of how to run a business. It's a miracle they've lasted this long and are as big as they are if I consider what I see and what I hear from employees as to how they run things. So I could see them doing stupid stuff unnecessarily.

[Gail in Virginia]

I can't find the article that I read now, and don't have time to look during tax season, but I do recall reading something (that I thought was published by the IRS) that went so far as to say that while I could make a mass mailing to all of my clients as long as I did it myself and used the postal service, if I used a mailing service to prepare the mailing it was a violation of the disclosure rules. This would tend to imply that we are required to keep names and addresses confidential. I don't know whether that would mean not being able to tell the police without a warrant.

[MontanaEA]

Here is a cut and paste out of a sample disclosure policy that gives some citations:

Your Tax Information is Confidential

Tax returns and tax return information are confidential and may not be disclosed to federal or state agencies, or to federal or state employees, or to any third party, except as provided by law. Disclosure of tax return information to federal or state agencies or employees is governed by Internal Revenue Code Section 6103.

A tax professional or tax return preparer who uses information from a tax return for any purpose other than to prepare a tax return, or who makes an unauthorized disclosure of return information, is subject to a $250 penalty for each disclosure, up to a maximum penalty of $10,000. If the action is undertaken knowingly or recklessly, the preparer may be subject to criminal penalties or fine up to $1,000, or up to a year in jail, or both, together with the cost of prosecution as provided for by the Internal Revenue Code Sections 6713 and 7216.

Confidential tax return information includes the following elements: the taxpayer's identity, the nature, source or amount of income, payments, receipts, deductions, net worth, tax liability, deficiencies, closing agreements, and information regarding actual or possible investigation of a return.

[Lion EA]

And, I also read on the IRS site that an exception to the disclosure requirement for client signatures is gathering and disclosing ANONYMOUS AGGREGATE information on our clients. Does that then say that mentioning a single name (instead of the anonymous aggregate 100 clients) is against regulations? The IRS makes it sound that way. If we could mention our clients by name, then why don't we see lists of clients posted on the windows of storefront offices? My colleagues and I at a Block Premium office certainly had a few clients whose names would've been good publicity if able to be disclosed! But, that wouldn't be disclosure for the purpose of preparing and transmitting a return -- which is allowed. I guess a discussion with a former accountant could be necessary for preparing a return, if getting a depreciation schedule or other required information (don't we need signatures when the discussion is outside our own firm?). But, the OP just wanted to report his new client to his other employer or get permission or something like that, preliminary to actually preparing a return.

[GeneInAlabama]

I don't work according to H&R rules. I have found them to be very obnoxious about informing me of things I do wrong. Twice, I have had someone from H&R call me about something I supposedly did wrong. Once several years ago, someone I prepared a return for went to H&R for a RAL and they called me and told me that I should not list a dependent as "child", that it should be "son" or "daughter". I told them I didn't work according to H&R Block rules. Another time, they called me because a W2 I prepared for one of my clients had some of the writing outside of the box. On the old dot mattrix printers, it was impossible to allign the forms where the print would fall inside the boxes on all copies. In my thirty years in business, I have never had any other tax preparer or accountant call me and complain about how I did things, although I'm sure there have probably been times they could have. It seems that H&R Block encourages their employees to criticize other preparers.