> I'm a tax accountant. Suppose I handed you your 1995 return and it showed
> taxable income of $30,000 and income tax of $50,000, You would certainly
> question whether it was properly prepared.
> And what right would I have to respond, "Go to hell - you've never read
the
> Internal Revenue Code."
> That's right - none. Because the return didn't make sense, and you need
not
> be a tax accountant to see it. THAT'S my point.
Tom responded,
>>>Sure, your client could ask if something was wrong. But, on the other
hand, if he asserts that it definately is wrong without looking what what
was actually done, you'd have every right to kick him out of the office.<<<
Sure, and you can do the same. But that's not the point. The point IS,
it would be arrogant and question-begging for me to simply direct him to
the Code And Regs. What's more, secondary literature would probably serve
the purpose musch better.
Sorry to quibble & run, but I'm leaving town for a day; my nonresponse
won't indicate flight.
Bloody but unbowed,
Chuck