Preparer regulation after Loving v. IRS

1Summary

A federal research credit under Section 41 is claimed on a tax return or a claim for refund, and the person who prepares it for a fee is a tax return preparer under the Internal Revenue Code.1 In 2011 Treasury and the IRS issued rules that would have required paid preparers to pass an initial certification exam, pay annual fees and complete at least 15 hours of continuing education a year.2 In Loving v. IRS the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in 2014 that the statute the IRS relied on, 31 U.S.C. 330, does not give it authority to regulate tax return preparers.2 Later that year a district court applied the same reasoning to the preparation of refund claims filed before an audit.3

Since Loving, any person who holds a preparer tax identification number may prepare a federal return or refund claim for a fee, and the IRS issues that number for an $18.75 fee with no examination.45 The Code's penalties and injunctions reach every paid preparer.67 The rules that restrict contingent fees, in Circular 230 and the AICPA Code, reach only practitioners and AICPA members.89 Treasury proposed in 2024 to remove the registered preparer rules from Circular 230, and it has asked Congress for explicit authority to regulate all paid preparers.1011

For research credit claims, who may prepare a claim and how they may be paid now depend on the preparer's credentials and memberships, and the claim tells the IRS little about either.

2The question

A business that claims the research credit usually relies on someone to identify its qualified research, compute its qualified research expenses and complete Form 6765. That work is often specialized, and it may be done by the business's own accountant, by a separate adviser, or by both. The question for this paper is narrow: under federal law as it stands, who may do that work for a fee, what qualifications they need, and which rules govern their conduct and their fees.

The question matters for the debate about contingent fees because the federal rules that restrict those fees are rules about particular groups of people. A rule that binds only some of the people who prepare research credit claims leaves the others free to set their fees as they choose. Loving is the decision that fixed where the boundary of federal preparer regulation lies.

3Who counts as a tax return preparer

The Internal Revenue Code defines a tax return preparer as any person who prepares for compensation, or who employs one or more persons to prepare for compensation, any return of tax or any claim for refund. Preparing a substantial portion of a return or claim counts as preparing it.1 The definition excludes, among others, a person who only provides typing or other mechanical assistance and an employee preparing the return of a regular employer.1

The regulations divide preparers into two groups.12

A signing tax return preparer is the individual with primary responsibility for the overall substantive accuracy of the return or refund claim.
A nonsigning tax return preparer prepares all or a substantial portion of a return or claim but is not the signing preparer. The regulations give, as an example, a person whose advice leads to a position or entry that is a substantial portion of the return.

A person who gives advice on a position that is directly relevant to the existence, characterization or amount of an entry on a return or claim is regarded as having prepared that entry, and a single entry can be a substantial portion.12 For nonsigning preparers only, an entry is not a substantial portion if the amounts on the basis of which a credit is determined are less than $10,000, or less than $400,000 and also less than 20 percent of the gross income shown on the return.12

A research credit computation produces a single figure on the return, and for many businesses it is a significant one. On the text of these definitions, an adviser who prepares that computation for a fee will often be a tax return preparer of the return or claim, as a signing or nonsigning preparer, depending on the facts.112

4The 2011 rules and Loving v. IRS

4.1What the 2011 rules required

Before 2011, individual tax return preparers were generally not subject to Circular 230 unless they were attorneys, certified public accountants, enrolled agents or another type of practitioner it identified.10 On 3 June 2011 Treasury and the IRS published final regulations that required paid preparers to become registered tax return preparers subject to Circular 230.10 As the Court of Appeals described them, the rules required paid preparers to pass an initial certification exam, pay annual fees and complete at least 15 hours of continuing education each year. The IRS estimated that they would apply to between 600,000 and 700,000 tax return preparers.2

The rules relied on 31 U.S.C. 330, which allows the Secretary of the Treasury to "regulate the practice of representatives of persons before the Department of the Treasury".13 Before admitting a representative to practice, the Secretary may require the representative to show good character, good reputation, the qualifications needed to provide valuable service, and "competency to advise and assist persons in presenting their cases".13

4.2The decision

Three independent tax return preparers challenged the rules. The District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in their favor and permanently enjoined the preparer regulations.2 On 11 February 2014 the Court of Appeals affirmed.2 It held that the IRS's authority under Section 330 "cannot be stretched so broadly as to encompass authority to regulate tax-return preparers".2

The court gave six reasons.2

Representatives. A representative is commonly understood as an agent with authority to bind another. Tax return preparers "are not agents" and cannot legally bind the taxpayer; representation before the IRS requires a power of attorney, which preparers do not typically obtain.
Practice before the Department. Practice before an agency ordinarily refers to an investigation, adversarial hearing or other adjudicative proceeding. Filing a return is part of a system of self-assessment, and a return preparer is not invited to present arguments when the IRS assesses liability.
History. The statute was enacted in 1884 to govern agents and attorneys representing claimants, and Congress said in 1982 that its restatement made no substantive change.
Statutory framework. Congress has enacted targeted penalties for preparers, in sections 6694, 6695 and 6713 among others. Reading Section 330 as the IRS did would make those provisions largely unnecessary.
The scale of the authority claimed. The IRS's reading would let it regulate, for the first time, hundreds of thousands of people in the tax preparation industry, without any sign that Congress intended it.
The IRS's own past approach. Until 2011 the IRS had never read the statute to cover preparers, and in 2009 its own guidance said that just preparing a return "is not practice before the IRS".

The court closed with a sentence that has framed the debate since: "It might be that allowing the IRS to regulate tax-return preparers more stringently would be wise as a policy matter. But that is a decision for Congress and the President to make if they wish by enacting new legislation."2

4.3What Loving did not decide

The decision concerned Treasury's authority under Section 330. It did not affect the Internal Revenue Code's own rules for preparers, which the court described as Congress's "carefully articulated existing system for regulating tax-return preparers".2 Nor did it affect the regulation of attorneys, certified public accountants and enrolled agents who represent taxpayers before the IRS.2

5What followed

5.1Refund claims: Ridgely v. Lew

On 16 July 2014 the District Court for the District of Columbia applied Loving to Circular 230's rule on contingent fees. A practicing certified public accountant challenged section 10.27 as applied to "Ordinary Refund Claims", which the court defined as refund claims filed after the original return but before the IRS has started an audit.3 The court treated Loving as controlling precedent.3 It pointed to the "comprehensive scheme of penalties" Congress had enacted to curb abuse in preparing both original returns and refund claims.3 It noted that, on the IRS's reading, the IRS "would impose no contingent fee restrictions on the preparation and filing of Ordinary Refund Claims by non-CPAs and those who never 'practice' before the IRS".3 It held that the IRS lacks statutory authority to regulate the preparation and filing of those claims, and it granted a permanent injunction.3

A research credit missed on an original return is commonly claimed on an amended return, which is a refund claim. Ridgely therefore bears directly on research credit work.

5.2The voluntary program

After Loving the IRS created the Annual Filing Season Program. Treasury describes its participants as generally otherwise unenrolled preparers who, under Rev. Proc. 2014-42, voluntarily consent to be subject to Circular 230 duties and restrictions in order to take part.10 The IRS issues a record of completion to preparers who obtain a set number of continuing education hours for a tax year.5 Treasury states that the D.C. Circuit upheld its authority to run the program in AICPA v. IRS in 2018.10

The program is voluntary. It gives participants limited representation rights: they may represent clients whose returns they prepared and signed before revenue agents and similar employees, but not in appeals or collection.5

5.3The 2024 proposal

On 26 December 2024 Treasury and the IRS published proposed amendments to Circular 230.10 They stated that, as a result of Loving, the 2011 rules on registered tax return preparers "are no longer enforceable", and proposed to remove them.10 They also proposed to remove the current text of section 10.8, which on its face requires anyone who prepares all or substantially all of a return for compensation to be a practitioner, and to replace it with a rule on non-practitioners appearing as witnesses or furnishing information.1014

On fees, the proposal would replace section 10.27 with a new section 10.51 that treats a contingent fee for preparing an original or amended return or a refund claim as disreputable conduct.10 Treasury relied on its authority under Section 330(c) to sanction practitioners for disreputable conduct "whether or not the conduct constitutes representation of a client".1013 That authority applies to representatives, so the proposed rule would reach practitioners and not preparers who hold no credential. Comments closed on 24 February 2025.10 A search of the Federal Register for its docket, REG-116610-20, on 11 October 2026 returned only the proposal and no final rule.15

5.4The end of Chevron deference

The Court of Appeals decided Loving under the Chevron framework and held that the IRS's reading failed at the first step, because the statute foreclosed it, and would also fail at the second.2 In June 2024 the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, holding that courts "must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority".16 Because the IRS lost in Loving even under the more deferential framework, the later decision offers no apparent route to preparer regulation by regulation alone.

5.5Proposals to Congress

Treasury has asked Congress for the authority Loving found missing. Its explanation of the Administration's revenue proposals for fiscal year 2025, published on 11 March 2024, proposed amending Title 31 "to provide the Secretary with explicit authority to regulate all paid preparers of Federal tax returns, including by establishing mandatory minimum competency standards".11 The same document noted that the Code authorizes the IRS to issue preparer tax identification numbers but "provides no authority to revoke or rescind" them, so that unless a court enjoins a preparer there is no authority to stop a preparer who misuses the system from continuing to prepare returns.11

The fiscal year 2025 proposals also included a new penalty of $500, except for reasonable cause, on a taxpayer who fails to disclose the use of a paid tax return preparer "and the fees paid to such a preparer".11 Treasury's stated reason was that the disclosure would help the IRS identify preparers perpetuating fraud.11

In Congress, the Tax Return Preparer Accountability Act of 2025, H.R. 1983, was introduced on 10 March 2025 and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.17 It would amend Section 330 to cover "the practice of tax return preparers", and would require preparers to demonstrate minimum competency by obtaining an identifying number, satisfying any examination and continuing education requirements the Secretary prescribes, and completing a background check, with an exemption for preparers subject to comparable requirements, including under a state licensing program.17 This paper found no record that either proposal has been enacted.

6Who may prepare a research credit claim today

6.1The identification number

The IRS states that anyone who prepares or assists in preparing federal tax returns for compensation must have a valid preparer tax identification number (PTIN) before preparing returns.4 For 2026 the fee for a new PTIN or a renewal is $18.75, and the IRS says most first-time applicants can obtain one online in about 15 minutes.4 The IRS states that any tax professional with a PTIN "is authorized to prepare federal tax returns", and that tax professionals "have differing levels of skills, education and expertise".5

The regulations still say that, unless guidance provides otherwise, a person must be an attorney, certified public accountant, enrolled agent or registered tax return preparer to obtain a PTIN, and Circular 230 section 10.8 still contains a similar rule.1814 The 2024 proposal treats the registered preparer rules as unenforceable after Loving, and the IRS's current guidance describes a class of PTIN holders with no professional credential who are authorized to prepare returns.105

6.2Representation is different

Preparing a claim and representing a business before the IRS are treated differently. The IRS describes three levels.5

Preparer	May prepare returns for a fee	May represent clients before the IRS
Enrolled agent, certified public accountant or attorney	Yes, with a PTIN	Unlimited, on any matter, including audits, collection and appeals
Annual Filing Season Program participant	Yes, with a PTIN	Limited to clients whose returns they prepared and signed, before revenue agents and similar employees, and not in appeals or collection
PTIN holder with no credential who is not in the program	Yes, with a PTIN	None, except for returns prepared and filed on or before 31 December 2015

Figure 1. Preparation and representation rights by type of preparer, as described by the IRS.5

Enrolled agents are licensed by the IRS and must pass a three-part examination; certified public accountants are licensed by state boards of accountancy; attorneys are licensed by state courts or their designees.5 Nothing in the Form 6765 instructions sets a separate credential for people who prepare research credit computations.19

6.3The rules that reach every preparer

The Internal Revenue Code applies to any tax return preparer, whatever the preparer's credential.

Understatement penalty. If any part of an understatement of liability on a return or claim is due to an unreasonable position the preparer knew or reasonably should have known of, the preparer owes the greater of $1,000 or 50 percent of the income derived from the return or claim. For willful or reckless conduct the penalty is the greater of $5,000 or 75 percent.6 An understatement of liability includes an overstatement of the net amount creditable or refundable.6 No penalty applies under the first rule if there was reasonable cause and the preparer acted in good faith.6
Aiding and abetting. A person who aids or advises on any portion of a return or claim, knowing it would result in an understatement of another person's tax, owes a penalty of $1,000, or $10,000 where the document relates to a corporation's liability.20
Injunctions. The United States may sue to enjoin a preparer who has engaged in conduct subject to the preparer penalties, misrepresented eligibility to practice, "guaranteed the payment of any tax refund or the allowance of any tax credit", or engaged in other fraudulent or deceptive conduct. A preparer who has done so continually or repeatedly may be barred from acting as a preparer.7
Identification. Any return or refund claim prepared by a tax return preparer must bear the preparer's identifying number.21 The regulations put that duty on the signing preparer and, where there is an employment arrangement, require the firm's employer identification number as well.18

These rules operate after a return is filed. They do not set qualifications for entry and they do not govern how fees are calculated.

6.4The rules that reach only some preparers

Two sets of rules restrict contingent fees for preparing returns and refund claims.

Circular 230. Section 10.27 provides that, except in listed cases, a practitioner may not charge a contingent fee for services rendered in connection with any matter before the IRS, which includes preparing returns and refund claims.8 A contingent fee includes a fee based on a percentage of the refund reported on a return or of the taxes saved.8 Since Ridgely the rule cannot be enforced against the preparation and filing of refund claims before an audit.3
The AICPA Code. A member in public practice shall not "Prepare an original or amended tax return or claim for a tax refund for a contingent fee for any client".9 The Code binds AICPA members.

Neither rule reaches a preparer who is not a practitioner and not an AICPA member. Figure 2 sets out the position.

Who prepares the research credit claim	Code penalties and injunctions	Circular 230 fee rule	AICPA fee rule
Certified public accountant who is an AICPA member	Apply	Applies, except to refund claims before an audit after Ridgely	Applies
Attorney or enrolled agent	Apply	Applies, except to refund claims before an audit after Ridgely	Does not apply unless a member
PTIN holder with no credential	Apply	Outside Treasury's practice authority under Loving	Does not apply unless a member

Figure 2. Which federal rules reach a paid preparer of a research credit claim. A general summary, not advice on any case. Sources: Code sections 6694, 6701 and 7407; 31 CFR 10.27; the AICPA Code; Loving; Ridgely.62078923

7What the claim tells the IRS about its preparer

The paid preparer section of the income tax return identifies the signing preparer and the firm.18 Form 6765 itself has no field for the name of any person who prepared the credit computation, and its instructions say nothing about preparers.19 When the credit is claimed on an amended return, the IRS requires five items of information about the claim: the business components, the research activities for each, the individuals who performed them, the information they sought to discover, and the totals of qualified wage, supply and contract research expenses.22 Those items describe the research. None asks who prepared the claim or how that person was paid.22

The result is that the IRS learns the signing preparer's identity from the return, may not learn the identity of a separate adviser who prepared the credit computation as a nonsigning preparer, and learns nothing from any form about the fee arrangement. Treasury's own fiscal year 2025 proposal for a penalty on failing to disclose a preparer and the fees paid reflects that gap, as it applies to returns generally.11

8The case for the present approach

A fair account must set out the arguments for leaving preparer regulation and fee arrangements as they are, in their strongest form.

The court's reasons are substantial. Loving rests on the text, history and structure of a statute. Preparers do not represent taxpayers, the tax system is one of self-assessment, and Congress has chosen to police preparers through targeted penalties.2 On this view, the existing penalties and injunctions are the regulation Congress intended, and they apply to every preparer.67

Entry rules raise costs. Examinations, fees and continuing education cost money and time. When Treasury tightened its contingent fee rule in 2007, most commenters opposed further limits; several said the proposed rules were overly broad, interfered with the relationship between practitioner and client, and prevented some small and middle market taxpayers from appropriately requesting refunds.23 The same concern applies to research credit work, which some businesses would not pursue at all if they had to pay in advance.

Success fees serve real needs. A fee calculated as a share of the credit costs the business nothing unless a credit results. It shifts the cost of unsuccessful work to the adviser, it moves with the value the business receives, and it can let a smaller business engage specialists it could not otherwise afford. Many advisers who charge such fees prepare careful, well supported claims, and nothing in this paper suggests otherwise.

Professional bodies can draw the lines. The AICPA Code already restricts contingent fees for its members.9 On this view, the profession, not Congress, is best placed to decide what fee arrangements are appropriate.

9The answer

These arguments deserve weight, and none of them is an argument about the conduct of any adviser. The answer turns on the reach of the rules and on what the fee structure rewards.

Penalties apply after the fact, and to the preparer's income from the work. The preparer penalty is measured against the income derived from the return or claim, and it applies only where an understatement results from an unreasonable position or worse.6 It does not change how the fee is calculated before the claim is filed. The business remains liable for any disallowed credit.

The fee rules depend on who prepares the claim. After Loving and Ridgely, whether a contingent fee for a research credit claim is restricted depends on whether the preparer is a practitioner, whether the preparer is an AICPA member, and whether the claim is an original return or a refund claim filed before an audit.2389 Two preparers doing the same work on the same claim can be subject to different rules on how they may be paid. The business that engages them may not know which rules apply.

The court left the question to Congress. Loving did not say that preparers should be unregulated. It said that wider regulation "is a decision for Congress and the President".2 Treasury has since asked Congress for that authority.11 A statutory rule on fees in research credit engagements would not depend on the scope of Section 330 at all.

The access argument is an argument for predictable pricing. The concern that some businesses cannot pay in advance can be met by fees that are fixed, capped or payable when the credit is realized but not calculated as a share of it. Section 10.27's definition of a contingent fee does not reach such arrangements.8

Our position

Congress should prohibit contingent fees, commonly called success fees, in federal research and development tax credit engagements under Section 41, so that advisers are paid for the work they perform rather than for the size of the claim they produce. A statutory rule would apply to every adviser paid to prepare or support a research credit claim, whatever their credential, so that the rule on how a claim may be paid for no longer depends on who prepares it. Swanson Reed, which publishes this paper, is a fixed-fee R&D tax adviser. It has a direct commercial interest in the outcome: it does not charge success fees, and a ban would remove a pricing model it competes against.

10What the record does not show

Three gaps limit what can be said about the people who prepare research credit claims.

First, no IRS publication found for this paper reports how many research credit claims are prepared by certified public accountants, attorneys, enrolled agents or preparers with no credential. Form 6765 does not identify the preparer of the credit computation, so the forms cannot supply that data.19

Second, no official source found for this paper reports how research credit preparers are paid. No form asks.1922 Treasury's fiscal year 2025 proposal to require disclosure of fees paid to preparers had not been enacted when this paper was written.11

Third, the 2024 Circular 230 proposal had not been finalized when this paper was written, so the rules described here may change for practitioners.10

The analysis in this paper therefore rests on the structure of the law: who the rules reach and who they do not. It does not rest on any measurement of how preparers of research credit claims behave, and it makes no claim about the conduct of any adviser.

References

Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 26 U.S.C. 7701, Definitions, subsection (a)(36), United States Code 2024 edition published by the Government Publishing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title26/html/USCODE-2024-title26-subtitleF-chap79-sec7701.htm (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Loving v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 13-5061, decided 11 February 2014, slip opinion pages 2 to 17. https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2014/02/13-5061-1479431.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
US District Court for the District of Columbia, Ridgely v. Lew, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00565 (CRC), Memorandum Opinion, 16 July 2014, pages 1, 9, 10 to 11, 13 and 15. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_12-cv-00565/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_12-cv-00565-1.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Internal Revenue Service, PTIN requirements for tax return preparers (page last reviewed or updated 16 October 2025). https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/ptin-requirements-for-tax-return-preparers (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Internal Revenue Service, Understanding tax return preparer credentials and qualifications (page last reviewed or updated 29 January 2026). https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/understanding-tax-return-preparer-credentials-and-qualifications (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 26 U.S.C. 6694, Understatement of taxpayer's liability by tax return preparer, subsections (a), (b) and (e), United States Code 2024 edition published by the Government Publishing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title26/html/USCODE-2024-title26-subtitleF-chap68-subchapB-partI-sec6694.htm (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 26 U.S.C. 7407, Action to enjoin tax return preparers, subsections (a) and (b), United States Code 2024 edition published by the Government Publishing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title26/html/USCODE-2024-title26-subtitleF-chap76-subchapA-sec7407.htm (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Treasury Department, Circular No. 230, 31 CFR 10.27, Fees, paragraphs (b) and (c). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-A/part-10/subpart-B/section-10.27 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
American Institute of CPAs, AICPA Code of Professional Conduct (updated for all official releases through September 2026), ET 1.510.001 Contingent Fees Rule, paragraph .01. https://pub.aicpa.org/codeofconduct/ethicsresources/et-cod.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service, Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, notice of proposed rulemaking, 89 FR 104915 (26 December 2024), Dates, Background parts A and B, and Explanation of Provisions parts A, B and D. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/26/2024-29371/regulations-governing-practice-before-the-internal-revenue-service (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2025 Revenue Proposals (11 March 2024), "Expand and increase penalties for noncompliant return preparation and e-filing and authorize IRS oversight of paid preparers", pages 206 to 209. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service, 26 CFR 301.7701-15, Tax return preparer, paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i), (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/section-301.7701-15 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 31 U.S.C. 330, Practice before the Department, subsections (a) and (c), United States Code 2024 edition published by the Government Publishing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title31/html/USCODE-2024-title31-subtitleI-chap3-subchapII-sec330.htm (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Treasury Department, Circular No. 230, 31 CFR 10.8, Return preparation and application of rules to other individuals, paragraphs (a) to (c). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-A/part-10/subpart-A/section-10.8 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register documents filed under agency docket REG-116610-20 (search result: one document, the proposed rule of 26 December 2024). https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/documents.json?conditions%5Bdocket_id%5D=REG-116610-20 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Supreme Court of the United States, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, decided 28 June 2024, opinion of the Court, slip opinion pages 34 to 35. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
US House of Representatives, H.R. 1983, Tax Return Preparer Accountability Act of 2025, 119th Congress, introduced 10 March 2025, sections 1 and 2. https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1983/BILLS-119hr1983ih.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service, 26 CFR 1.6109-2, Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund and related requirements, paragraphs (a) and (d). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/section-1.6109-2 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Internal Revenue Service, Instructions for Form 6765 (Rev. December 2025), read in full. https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i6765 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 26 U.S.C. 6701, Penalties for aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability, subsections (a) and (b), United States Code 2024 edition published by the Government Publishing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title26/html/USCODE-2024-title26-subtitleF-chap68-subchapB-partI-sec6701.htm (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 26 U.S.C. 6109, Identifying numbers, subsection (a)(4), United States Code 2024 edition published by the Government Publishing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title26/html/USCODE-2024-title26-subtitleF-chap61-subchapB-sec6109.htm (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Internal Revenue Service, Research credit claims (Section 41) on amended returns frequently asked questions, introduction (page last reviewed or updated 1 October 2026). https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/research-credit-claims-section-41-on-amended-returns-frequently-asked-questions (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service, Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, final regulations, T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54540 (26 September 2007), preamble, "Contingent Fees", page 54541. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2007-09-26/pdf/E7-18918.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back

Cite this paper

Summary

1Summary

2The question

3Who counts as a tax return preparer

4The 2011 rules and Loving v. IRS

4.1What the 2011 rules required

4.2The decision

4.3What Loving did not decide

5What followed

5.1Refund claims: Ridgely v. Lew

5.2The voluntary program

5.3The 2024 proposal

5.4The end of Chevron deference

5.5Proposals to Congress

6Who may prepare a research credit claim today

6.1The identification number

6.2Representation is different

6.3The rules that reach every preparer

6.4The rules that reach only some preparers

7What the claim tells the IRS about its preparer

8The case for the present approach

9The answer

10What the record does not show

References

About this paper

Cite this paper

Summary

1Summary

2The question

3Who counts as a tax return preparer

4The 2011 rules and Loving v. IRS

4.1What the 2011 rules required

4.2The decision

4.3What Loving did not decide

5What followed

5.1Refund claims: Ridgely v. Lew

5.2The voluntary program

5.3The 2024 proposal

5.4The end of Chevron deference

5.5Proposals to Congress

6Who may prepare a research credit claim today

6.1The identification number

6.2Representation is different

6.3The rules that reach every preparer

6.4The rules that reach only some preparers

7What the claim tells the IRS about its preparer

8The case for the present approach

9The answer

10What the record does not show

References

About this paper

Related papers