background image
11
Connecticut CPA
g
May/June 2013
paid advertisement
Clarification
The Appellate Court's decision in no way focused on whether there was
any merit to the plaintiff taxpayer's allegations regarding the change in
his tax treatment for years 2003-2005 (for the reason that such allega-
tions were irrelevant to the issue of whether a tax return preparer is a fi-
duciary). Nonetheless, the CPA has made it clear, prior to the change in
tax treatment, the matter had been fully discussed with the taxpayer and
was acknowledged and documented by a signed engagement letter.
More specifically, prior to the change, the CPA discussed with the client
the requirement to report multiple, cyclical real estate purchases and
sales as a trade or business on Schedule C, rather than treating them as
capital gains reported on Schedule D.
It is important that this information be brought to the attention of our
readers. We apologize for causing any misunderstanding on the part of
our readers or concern on the part of the CPA.
Connecticut Appellate Court Rules on the CPA as Fiduciary:
Recent Decision on Iacurci v. Sax Significant to Connecticut CPAs
Clarification and update to March/April Connecticut CPA article:
Subsequent Event
On March 1, 2013, the Connecticut
Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's
petition for certification and will deter-
mine the narrow issue of whether "the
Appellate Court properly affirm(ed) the
trial court's entry of summary judgment
against the plaintiff."