Some practitioners are worried that the IRS has given itself new means to discipline tax return preparers considered to have acted unethically by shifting the power to sanction and discipline practitioners from the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility to the administrative divisions of the agency.

Practitioners are offering relatively consistent interpretations of sentences resulting from an ongoing series of Justice Department foreign bank account reporting prosecutions against taxpayers with unreported offshore accounts, agreeing the sentences are light.

Recently released opinions in Circular 230 disciplinary proceedings confirm that practitioners under review for alleged ethical violations usually don't have much luck in escaping the sanctions sought by the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility. While both cases dealt with familiar noncompliance issues, several arguments made by OPR might trouble tax professionals concerned about the extent of the office's authority.

The U.S. Tax Court held July 8 in a case of first impression that it has jurisdiction under section 7623(b)(4) to consider a whistleblower's appeal of an award determination by the IRS Whistleblower Office. (For William Prentice Cooper III v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. No. 4 (Jul. 8, 2010), see Doc 2010-15202  .)

In what is seen as a blow to the famous Swiss banking secrecy laws, the Swiss Parliament resolved its split over the UBS account information disclosure issue when the lower house voted on June 15th to effectively overturn the Swiss court’s ruling that was temporarily blocking the agreement between UBS and the U.S. government.  Under the terms of the agreement, the U.S. government agreed to not prosecute UBS for its actions in assisting US tax evaders if UBS disclosed the names and account details of its 4,450 largest accounts held by US citizens suspected of tax evasion.