1. Home
  2. Taxes General Forum
  3. why no auth required w/ efiled extension?

why no auth required w/ efiled extension?

Everywhere in the IRS web site and form instructions, it's said that you only need Form 8878 signature authorization to efile an extension (Form

4868) if direct debit is being authorized via the PIN method. Otherwise, no.

As a practical matter, it seems a preparer can efile (or paper file) an extension for a taxpayer without having an IRS-recognized taxpayer signature on file. While I would not recommend doing so myself, it's not unheard of for a preparer to file blanket extensions for prior year clients they have been unsuccessful in contacting by 4/15, "just to be safe". (There does not appear to be any downside to filing a zero-balance-due extension, so no harm would result from this action). And yes, I realize that a zero-balance extension could be ruled invalid if the zero estimate was unreasonable, but again, no harm done if the taxpayer wasn't going to pay anything anyway.

So, on behalf of a fellow EA who remains unconvinced, I'm wondering, is there any statutory or regulatory cite that either allows a preparer to do this, or provides penalties for doing so? If not, do we go with "anything is allowed if not specifically prohibited", or "everything is prohibited unless specifically allowed?"

Related, are there any rules requiring paid preparers to efile extensions, similar to the rule which requires efiling of returns?

Reply to
Mark Bole
Loading thread data ...

Trying to answer my own question, does this do it:

§ 1.6081-1 Extension of time for filing returns.

"Except for requests for automatic extensions of time to file certain returns provided for elsewhere in this chapter, the application must be in writing, signed by the taxpayer or his duly authorized agent,..."

Since individuals are allowed an automatic extension, § 1.6081-4, this language above tells me that the application need not be in writing, and need not be signed (by anyone).

Reply to
Mark Bole

Mark, what part of the phrase, "or his duly authorized agent," makes you think a tax practitioner can file an extension for someone without that someone's say so? Where's the authorization to file extensions for what appears to be FORMER clients in your example?

Jus' askin'.

Reply to
Bill Brown

you think a tax practitioner can file an extension for someone without that someone's say so? Where's the authorization to file extensions for what appears to be FORMER clients in your example?

I was focusing on the word "Except". The signature requirement has exceptions, which includes the automatic extension under § 1.6081-4.

As we all know, paper extensions, and electronic extensions with no authorization for direct debit payment, need no signature. Only the signature-required scenario would bring the concept of "authorized agent" into it.

Reply to
Mark Bole

Ahh, you're probably right, dang it.

Reply to
Bill Brown

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.