Main Menu
Posts in Circular 230.

Weight ScalesOn May 11, 2015, after serving as Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) for approximately six (6) years, Ms. Karen Hawkins announced her intention to step-down and retire, effective July 11, 2015.

The OPR is responsible for interpreting and applying the Treasury Regulations governing practice before the Internal Revenue Service (commonly known as “Circular 230”).  It has exclusive responsibility for overseeing practitioner conduct and implementing discipline.  For this purpose, practitioners include attorneys, certified public accountants, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, appraisers, and all other persons representing taxpayers before the Internal Revenue Service.

The vision of the OPR is “to be the standard-bearer for integrity in tax service.”  As stated on OPR’s website, its “vision, mission, strategic goals and objectives support effective tax administration by ensuring all tax practitioners, tax preparers, and other third parties in the tax system adhere to professional standards and follow the law.”  Its specific goals include:  increasing tax advisor awareness and understanding of Circular 230; applying the principals of due process in all investigations and proceedings; and building, training and motivating its administrative team.

Ms. Hawkins will undoubtedly be missed by her work government colleagues.  She will also be missed by the tax community.  During her tenure at the OPR, she not only cleared the decks of a large backlog of pending disciplinary cases, she increased tax practitioner awareness and understanding of Circular 230.  Ms. Hawkins consistently made herself available to the tax community, speaking at numerous tax institutes and forums (including the Oregon Tax Institute).  In a direct, clear and concise manner, she reminded practitioners of their obligations under Circular 230.  Ms. Hawkins did not shy away from tough questions raised by tax practitioner audiences.  Instead, she hit the questions head on and provided complete and earnest answers.  Ms. Hawkins was likely responsible, in whole or in part, for the amendments to Circular 230 that alleviated the need for tax advisors to insert the silly disclaimers on all written communications that may contain federal tax advice.

While I have to assume Ms. Hawkins was a tough adversary in any disciplinary proceeding, especially given her no-nonsense approach to matters, she gave good and well-needed guidance to the tax community following amendments to Circular 230.  The tax community should be thankful for all of Ms. Hawkins’ hard work and her strong dedication to the tax profession.  She will be greatly missed.

As of the writing of this blog post, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service had not named a successor Director.  I assume that Lee Martin, the Deputy Director, will serve as acting Director until a successor is named.

When tax advisors fail to follow the rules, it tarnishes our profession.  The bad behavior may subject them to discipline by the body governing their practice, the Office of Professional Responsibility and/or the criminal justice system.

Discipline may come in many flavors, depending upon the severity of the misconduct.  Sanctions generally consist of censureship, suspension, disbarment, financial penalties and imprisonment.

The stakes are high.  Tax advisors and their firms need to know and follow the rules, and implement systems to ensure compliance by the members of their firms.


Effective June 30, 2005, Treasury issued final regulations amending Circular 230 (“2005 Regulations”).  The 2005 Regulations were specifically aimed at two goals:

  • Deterring taxpayers from engaging in abusive transactions by limited or eliminating their ability to avoid penalties via inappropriate reliance on advice of tax advisors; and
  • Preventing unscrupulous tax advisors and promoters from marketing abusive transactions and tax products to taxpayers based upon opinions that failed to adequately consider the law and the facts.

After the 2005 Regulations were issued, Treasury continued tinkering with the regulations to refine its approach, keenly keeping focus on these two goals.  Accordingly, we have seen numerous refinements to Circular 230 in the past nine (9) years, including:

  • Amendments to the 2005 Regulations published on May 19, 2005;
  • Broadened authority granted by lawmakers to Treasury to expand standards relating to written advice on October 22, 2004, with the passage of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (“AJCA”).  In addition, the AJCA gave Treasury authority to impose monetary penalties against tax advisors who violate Circular 230;
  • Amendments to Circular 230 published on February 6, 2006, in proposed form, adopting, among other things, monetary penalties for Circular 230 noncompliance.  These regulations were finalized, effective September 26, 2007; and
  • Amendments to the written advice provisions of Circular 230 published on October 1, 2012 in proposed form.  These amendments were finalized on June 14, 2014.

Until 2005, Circular 230 was untouched for almost two decades.  An enormous storm awoke Treasury from a deep sleep, causing a loud roar to permeate among lawmakers, the IRS, Treasury and the tax community.  The result was the adoption of rules aimed at achieving the two goals set forth above.

The ultimate cause of the storm was the broad sweeping allegations of fraud and deception in the accounting and law professions which we saw in the early part of this millennium, including scandals involving ENRON, Global Crossing, imClone, WorldCom, Qwest, Tyco, HealthSouth and Aldelphia.  Further feeding the storm were the black clouds created by the collapse of Arthur Andersen and the financial penalties assessed against and the practice limitations imposed upon KPMG.  Last, but certainly not least, the investigations and lawsuits against tax advisors (and their firms) for developing and marketing abusive tax shelters, including the investigations and lawsuits leading to the demise of the large law firm of Jenkens & Gilchrist (“Jenkens”), added to these dark times.

The Demise of a Law Firm

In the early 1990s, Jenkens was a midsize law firm based out of Dallas, Texas.  Like many law firms, it had grandiose expansion plans, including hiring lateral attorneys and opening offices beyond Texas.  As the plans were implemented, the firm’s increasing focus became raising the profits per partner.

In 1998, Jenkens successfully recruited Chicago tax attorney Paul Daugerdas (“Daugerdas”).  Daugerdas was not a rookie tax attorney.  He had been a partner with Arthur Andersen and later chaired the tax practice in the Chicago office of law firm Altheimer & Gray.  With Daugerdas’s help, the Jenkens tax department grew exponentially and the profits from his tax shelter practice soared to record heights.  The firm’s management appeared enthralled with its growth and new-found profit achievements, especially the huge revenues generated by Daugerdas and his practice.

Unfortunately, it was too late when the firm finally decided to put an end to the tax shelter business.  According to the government, it ran a 10-year scheme that created $8 billion in tax deductions and over $1 billion in losses, all of which it alleged were improper.  After being audited by the IRS and losing the significant deductions, clients eventually sued the firm, claiming the tax shelters were fraudulent.  At that time, the government began significant investigations into the firm and its practices.  Unable to withstand the stress and financial strain from the client claims and the government’s investigation which resulted in a penalty assessment exceeding $75 million, the firm eventually closed its doors.

On June 9, 2009, at least seven (7) individuals were indicted on criminal charges, including Daugerdas, some of his former colleagues from Jenkens and BDO Seidman’s former CEO.  The indictment is a detailed 78-page chronology of the alleged events.  The Jenkens firm, itself, avoided prosecution when it, in 2007, entered into a nonprosecution agreement.  It likely paid a good portion of the $76 million penalty assessment.

The Long and Tumultuous Saga of Paul Daugerdas

In the case against Daugerdas, the government asserted, among other things, that he participated in a scheme to defraud the IRS by designing, marketing, implementing and defending fraudulent tax shelters.  Through a variety of strategies, his firm issued written opinions to clients, concluding losses and deductions generated from the tax shelters would more likely than not survive IRS challenge.  In addition, Daugerdas and five (5) other defendants personally used the tax shelters to evade income taxes on substantial income.  John A. DiCicco, then-acting Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice, said at the time of the indictments:  “Dishonest and fraudulent tax professionals, including accountants, attorneys, and bankers, should stand up and take note of today’s indictment.  Professionals who sell and promote fraudulent tax shelters that help wealthy clients illegally evade taxes face serious felony charges and substantial prison time.”

The case proceeded to trial.  Before trial commenced, however, two (2) of the defendants pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government.  Daugerdas and four (4) other defendants continued the case, eventually seeing the eyes of a judge and a jury in a Manhattan courtroom.  On May 24, 2011, Daugerdas, along with three (3) others, were found guilty of charges, including conspiracy and tax evasion.  One (1) of the defendants was found not guilty.

Following the initial trial, Judge William H. Pauley III, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissed the convictions of three (3) of the defendants found guilty when he discovered a juror had lied about her background in an effort to enhance her chances of being selected for jury duty.  It turns out the juror was a suspended attorney with a substance abuse problem.  One (1) of the defendants agreed to a plea after the verdict and before Judge Pauley overturned the convictions.  That defendant was not eligible for a new trial.

The case proceeded to a second trial.  Just before the second trial began, one (1) of the three (3) remaining defendants pleaded guilty.  She was sentenced to eight years in prison and ordered to pay $190 million in restitution.  This left Daugerdas and one (1) other defendant, Denis Field, the former CEO of BDO Seidman, to battle it out for a second time.

On November 4, 2013, the jury in the second trial found Mr. Field not guilty.  Daugerdas, however, did not attain such a positive outcome.  The jury found him guilty on seven (7) charges, including conspiracy and tax evasion.  On June 25, 2014, Judge Pauley finally sentenced Daugerdas to 15 years in prison.

Daugerdas and tax advisors like him are primarily responsible for causing Treasury to create the 2005 Regulations, especially the written advice provisions.  Fortunately for the tax community, as mentioned in my June 24, 2014 blog post, Treasury finally amended Circular 230, eliminating the crazy practitioner written advice disclaimers and easing up the written advice requirements.  Still, because of cases like the Daugerdas case, practitioners need to be cautious.  The government will not allow the creation, implementation and marketing of abusive tax shelters.  Daugerdas’s journey and the demise of Jenkens should be a lesson to the entire tax community.  Daugerdas’s journey was long and tumultuous, but in the end it should serve as a warning to tax advisors.  The stringent and complex Circular 230 written advice rules may have recently been relaxed, but tax advisors are still subject to a high standard of conduct.  A good working knowledge of Circular 230 is required of all tax advisors.  Compliance is paramount.


As of June 12, 2014, with the exception of what are commonly known as “Marketed Opinions,” tax advisors and their firms no longer need separate standards governing Written Advice.  Section 10.35 of Circular 230 (“C230”) has been eliminated.  Consequently, the crazy, overused C230 disclaimers can go in the trash bin.  No more emails to mom, dad, children or other family members, and/or friends with a federal tax disclaimer.  I bet that will be somewhat of a relief to these email recipients.  No longer will they find themselves looking for tax advice as a result of the prominent disclaimer in a message that has absolutely nothing to do with taxes.

Representatives of the IRS and the Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) have vocalized glee about the elimination of C230 disclaimers.  Karen Hawkins, Director of the OPR, told participants at a tax conference in New York last week:  “I’m here to tell you that jurat, that disclaimer off your emails.  It’s no longer necessary.”  IRS Chief Counsel, William Wilkins, echoed the same sentiments last week when he said:  “The Circular 230 legend is not merely dead, it’s really most sincerely dead.”

Treasury estimates this amendment to C230 and the removal of the corresponding compliance burden on tax advisors “should save tax practitioners [and/or their clients] a minimum of $5,333,200.”

All Written Advice is now governed by Section 10.37 of C230.  This provision does not contain specific disclosure rules.  Consequently, unless Treasury further amends Section 10.37, the C230 disclaimers are no longer required on Written Advice.

Going forward, among other things specifically set forth in Section 10.37 of C230, tax advisors must:

  • Base the written advice on reasonable factual and legal assumptions (including   assumptions as to future events);
  • Reasonably consider all relevant facts and circumstances that the practitioner knows or reasonably should know;
  • Use reasonable efforts to identify and ascertain the facts relevant to written advice on each Federal tax matter;
  • Not rely upon representations, statements, findings, or agreements (including projections, financial forecasts, or appraisals) of the taxpayer or any other person if reliance on them would be unreasonable;
  • Relate applicable law and authorities to facts; and
  • Not, in evaluating a federal tax matter, take into account the possibility that a tax return will not be audited or that a matter will not be raised on audit.

C230 still provides that any tax advisor with principal authority and responsibility for overseeing the firm’s tax practice must take reasonable steps to ensure that it has adequate procedures in place to ensure C230 compliance.  Failure to take “reasonable” steps to ensure that the procedures are followed subjects the tax advisor and his or her firm to discipline.

As a result of the June 12, 2014 amendments to C230, tax advisors (with the exception of Marketed Opinions):

  • Are no longer required to use disclaimers; and
  • Are no longer required to describe in Written Advice all of the relevant facts, including assumptions and representations, the application of law to the facts, and any conclusions.

It is hard to dispute that specifically including in Written Advice all relevant facts, assumptions and representations, application of the law to the facts, and any legal conclusions, is a good and sound practice.  Nevertheless, Section 10.37 of C230 now only requires that tax advisors consider the:

  • Scope of the engagement;
  • The type and specificity of the advice sought; and
  • Appropriate facts and circumstances.

Based upon these factors, tax advisors are now required to determine the extent to which the relevant facts, application of the law to those facts, and the conclusions should be included in the Written Advice.  This amendment to C230, in a lengthy and verbose manner, tells tax advisors that they are not subject to specific and rigid information inclusion requirements in all Written Advice any longer.  Rather, they are required to look at all of the relevant facts and circumstances, giving due consideration to what they reasonably know or should know, to determine what should be included in Written Advice.  No rigid, one-size-fits-all, requirement exists any longer.  According to Karen Hawkins, the government amended this component of C230, purposely making it a broad principles-based rule.  It gives both the government and tax advisors lots of flexibility, allowing them to use common sense and sound practice standards when rendering Written Advice.

It should be noted, written presentations provided to an audience solely for educational purposes are not considered Written Advice for purposes of C230.  Be aware—if a presentation is made with any level of intent to market or promote transactions, more onerous requirements are required.  The IRS has not lost sight of history – it is keeping its eye on Marketed Opinions and will continue to closely scrutinize them.

Tax advisors and their firms need to have a good understanding of C230, as amended, and implement policies to ensure compliance therewith.  In light of the possibility of censorship, suspension or disbarment from practice before the IRS, the stakes are high.

The Service’s new arsenal is strong.  The 2014 amendments to C230 redirect the tax world back toward normalcy.  Nevertheless, given the sanctions for noncompliance, C230 is still something tax advisors and their firms need to take seriously and strive to comply therewith.

The takeaways are threefold:

1.  No longer may tax advisors place disclaimers on Written Advice that say things like “the IRS requires that we tell you…………………” or “we are required under Circular 230 to tell you” that you may not rely upon this advice to avoid federal tax penalties.  Those types of statements are no longer accurate and should be removed from Written Advice.  No longer does the IRS or C230 require such a statement.

2.  A good understanding of C230 is required by all tax advisors.  Firms should have a C230 Committee that adopts good practice standards and policies, and educates, monitors, and ensures C230 compliance by, members of the firm.

3.  Marketed Opinions are still being closely scrutinized by the IRS.  Compliance with Section 10.37 of C230 is required.

For C230 compliance issues, or to learn more about C230, feel free to contact me.


Acts of dishonesty can cost a tax practitioner his or her ability to practice before the IRS.  Charles M. Edgar (“Edgar”), formerly a licensed CPA and attorney in Massachusetts, recently learned this lesson.

On May 1, 2014, the Service issued a news release (“IR-2014-58”), announcing the disbarment of Edgar.  While the saga of Edgar is long and somewhat convoluted, it illustrates a significant point—failure to act honestly in matters before the IRS constitutes a violation of Circular 230.  It will cost you severely.


The Secretary of Treasury has express authority to regulate practice before the IRS, including the power to suspend or disbar an individual from practice before the Service for failing to comply with Circular 230.  In such instances, the practitioner must be provided notice and an opportunity for a hearing before an administrative law judge.

Circular 230 grants the Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility authority to bring proceedings to suspend or disbar practitioners from practice before the Service.  Generally, an administrative law judge, not the Office of Professional Responsibility, determines the appropriate sanction, if any, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances.

Circular 230 specifically provides that a practitioner may be sanctioned for giving “false or misleading” information to the Treasury or any officer or employee thereof.  For this purpose, “information” means any facts or statements made in testimony, on federal tax returns, financial statements, and other documents or statements (written or oral).

Circular 230 also provides that a practitioner may be sanctioned if he or she is disbarred or suspended from practice as an attorney, CPA, PA, or actuary.


Edgar was a CPA, but his license was revoked in 2010 by the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Public Accountancy, in part, due to a 1995 felony conviction for knowingly making false statements to the government and for mail fraud.  In 2011, Revenue Agent Adrienne Howley contacted Edgar in regard to an on-going audit of a corporation he previously had been designated as the authorized representative.  She apparently told Edgar that the Service was going to audit the corporation’s shareholders.  The agent specifically asked Edgar if he was going to represent the shareholders in the audit.  Edgar told Ms. Howley that he would be representing the shareholders, and he would be submitting powers of attorney to memorialize the representation.

About six months following his disbarment as a CPA, Edgar submitted a separate IRS Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative, for each of the corporation’s two shareholders.  On the Forms 2848, which are signed under the penalty of perjury, Edgar represented he was a CPA duly qualified to practice in Massachusetts.

After receiving the Forms 2848, Agent Howley conducted an on-line search, a routine practice, to determine if the representative held a valid license.  The search revealed Edgar’s CPA license had been revoked on December 23, 2010.  Consequently, Agent Howley referred the matter to the Office of Professional Responsibility.

After an investigation, the Office of Professional Responsibility sought to discipline Edgar.  The matter ended up in a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Walter J. Brudzinski.  At hearing, several bad facts came out, including:

  • Edgar had been convicted of a felony for making false statements and for mail fraud.  As a result, he lost his CPA license;

  • Edgar filed with the IRS Forms 2848 representing he was a CPA when, in fact, his license had been revoked months earlier;

  • Edgar never told Agent Howley he had been disbarred;

  • Edgar never told the corporate taxpayer or its shareholders he had been disbarred;

  • In Edgar’s answer to the Office of Professional Responsibility’s complaint, seeking discipline, he denied his CPA license had been revoked;

  • At hearing, Edgar appeared to have a memory lapse in that he could not remember his conversations with the auditor; and

  • At hearing, Edgar at one point claimed he did not sign or submit the Forms 2848 to the IRS.   Rather, he claimed one of the shareholders had done so.  Unfortunately, it was clear from the evidence submitted at hearing that the signatures on the forms were, in fact, his signatures.


The Administrative Law Judge concluded Edgar demonstrated “a pattern of conduct and occurrences that demonstrate [he] is not fit to practice before the IRS.”  His “lack of truthfulness, is troubling and bears directly on his fitness to represent taxpayers before the IRS.”

Edgar’s disbarment from practice before the IRS clearly places him on the bench.  If, however, he can show he is rehabilitated in terms of fitness to practice, he could re-apply to practice before the Service after five (5) years have elapsed.  Given his track record, that may be an uphill battle.

Karen L. Hawkins, Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility, stated “[t]he representations made by practitioners on powers of attorney forms are not mere procedural niceties.  The forms are signed under the penalty of perjury.  Claiming a nonexistent licensure status puts the IRS in the position of potentially discussing taxpayer information with an unauthorized or unqualified person.”  Ms. Hawkins went on to say:  “[w]e will not tolerate that type of abuse of the tax administration process by anyone.”

Caution is advised.  When dealing with the Service, other government agencies, clients and others, practitioners must act with honesty and integrity.


On March 3, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service published Announcement 2014-13 (“Announcement”).  The Announcement sets forth the disciplinary actions the Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) recently took against practitioners.

The OPR is responsible for interpreting and applying the Treasury Regulations governing practice before the Internal Revenue Service (commonly known as “Circular 230”).  It has exclusive responsibility for overseeing practitioner conduct and implementing discipline.  For this purpose, practitioners include attorneys, certified public accountants, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, appraisers, and all other persons representing taxpayers before the Internal Revenue Service.

In essence, Circular 230 sets forth the “rules of the road” for tax practice before the Service.  Circular 230 cases generally revolve around a practitioner’s fitness to practice.

The OPR is comprised of three major divisions: 

  1. Office of the Director;
  2. Legal Analysis Branch; and
  3. Operations and Management Branch.

The Director, currently Karen Hawkins, has primary supervisory responsibility for OPR.  She reports to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.  Ms. Hawkins’ authority includes oversight and control of OPR policy decisions.

The Legal Analysis Branch is tasked with the interpretation and application of Circular 230 in the cases involving practitioners.  Jack Manhire is currently the Chief of the Legal Analysis Branch.

The Chief of the Operations and Management Branch is currently Robert Johnson.  This group manages OPR’s administration, communications, budgetary and personnel functions.

OPR’s authority and case determinations are independent of the Internal Revenue Service enforcement functions.  Referrals to OPR, alleging practitioner violations of Circular 230, typically come from two sources:

  1. Internal sources (e.g., Internal Revenue Service Examination Division); and
  2. External sources (e.g., taxpayers, boards of accountancy, practitioners, etc.).

Following receipt of a referral, the OPR is tasked with determining, based upon the facts and circumstances, whether a violation of Circular 230 occurred, whether the violation is one which calls into question the practitioner’s fitness to practice, and the appropriate sanction, if any.  The life of a referral generally takes the following path:

  • The OPR performs a preliminary investigation of the facts and circumstances to determine whether it is likely a violation of Circular 230 occurred.
  • If the OPR determines that a violation of Circular 230 likely occurred, it notifies the practitioner and gives the practitioner an opportunity to present evidence to support his or her case.
  • After taking into consideration its investigatory findings and information presented by the practitioner, the OPR determines the level of discipline, if any, to apply to the case.
  • If the OPR and the practitioner do not agree to an appropriate sanction, OPR prepares a complaint and refers the matter to the General Legal Services Division of the Office of Chief Counsel.
  • The Office of Chief Counsel will generally attempt to work with the practitioner, giving him or her another opportunity to resolve the matter.  If a resolution is not reached, however, the Office of Chief Counsel files the complaint so that the matter is presented to an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.
  • The parties can always settle the case during the pendency of the ALJ proceeding.
  • If the case is not resolved, a hearing before the ALJ will occur.  The ALJ, after hearing the case, issues a decision commonly referred to as the “Initial Decision and Order.”
  • Either the OPR or the practitioner may appeal the ALJ decision to the Treasury Appellate Authority.  In such event, the Treasury Appellate Authority reviews the case and issues what is commonly referred to as the “Final Agency Decision.”   The text of the Final Agency Decision is made available to the public.
  • The practitioner may appeal a Final Agency Decision to the U.S. District Court.  The proceeding is not, however, a trial de novo.  Consequently, the court will only review the findings of fact on the record in the ALJ proceeding and will only set aside the decision if it was arbitrary or capricious, contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion.
  • The burden of proof in these cases is on the OPR.  It must show the practitioner willfully violated Circular 230 by “clear and convincing evidence.”
  • The sanctions against a practitioner in these cases generally include:  disbarment or suspension of practice before the Internal Revenue Service; censure (public reprimand); and/or imposition of monetary penalties.

The types of matters referred to the OPR include, without limitation, practitioners involved in promoting abusive tax shelters, preparing and filing frivolous tax returns, willfully attempting to evade any federal tax, diverting taxpayer refunds, repeated patterns of misconduct, and willful violations of Circular 230.

As reflected in the Announcement, during the last half of 2013, three enrolled agents, seven CPAs, three unenrolled preparers, and three attorneys were subjected to OPR discipline.  This included 11 suspensions and 5 disbarments.

The Announcement illustrates the high stakes.  Practitioners must pay careful attention to Circular 230 and their obligations thereunder.


Search This Blog



Larry J. Brant

Larry J. Brant is a Shareholder in Foster Garvey, a law firm based out of the Pacific Northwest, with offices in Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Washington, D.C.; New York, New York, Spokane, Washington; and Beijing, China. Mr. Brant practices in the Portland office. His practice focuses on tax, tax controversy and transactions. Mr. Brant is a past Chair of the Oregon State Bar Taxation Section. He was the long-term Chair of the Oregon Tax Institute, and is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Portland Tax Forum. Mr. Brant has served as an adjunct professor, teaching corporate taxation, at Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark College. He is an Expert Contributor to Thomson Reuters Checkpoint Catalyst. Mr. Brant is a Fellow in the American College of Tax Counsel. He publishes articles on numerous income tax issues, including Taxation of S Corporations, Reasonable Compensation, Circular 230, Worker Classification, IRC § 1031 Exchanges, Choice of Entity, Entity Tax Classification, and State and Local Taxation. Mr. Brant is a frequent lecturer at local, regional and national tax and business conferences for CPAs and attorneys. He was the 2015 Recipient of the Oregon State Bar Tax Section Award of Merit.

Recent Posts


Select Category:


Select Month:

Upcoming Speaking Engagements


Back to Page

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of cookies. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our Cookie Policy.