Byline
The editorial team publishes the site. We are not CPAs, EAs, or tax attorneys; we don't prepare returns. We cite primary practitioner sources and test every vendor claim against a real workflow before we publish.
AI Tax Practitioner Editorial researches, writes, and maintains the reference desk. Composition: people who work in AI implementation for professional-services workflows, anonymous by default, methodology-led. We publish what we learn so practitioners don't have to figure it out twice. Where a question requires CPA, EA, or attorney judgment, we point you to the right place rather than pretend to it.
Google's quality framework for "your money, your life" content prefers identifiable authors. The institutional byline ("AI Tax Practitioner Editorial") is accepted — as it is at NYT op-eds, The Economist, MIT Technology Review — when the publication backs it with:
We do not invent named writers, fabricate credentials, or generate author headshots. If you're reading a piece on this site and need to ask "is this person credible?" — the honest answer is: that's not the right question. Read the citations. If we can't back a claim with primary sources, we don't make the claim.
We research, draft, and fact-check every piece against primary sources: the IRC, Treasury regulations, Federal Register notices, state-board issuances, and named practitioner forums (r/taxpros, NATP, state EA listservs, named podcasts).
Vendor reviews are based on hands-on testing on real workflows, not on press releases or marketing demos. AI assistance is used in our research and drafting workflow; every published piece is reviewed by a human before it ships. We don't publish raw model output.
When a credentialed practitioner reviews a regulatory piece under a
paid arrangement, attribution reads:
Reviewed by [Name], [EA / CPA / JD], [jurisdiction],
displayed separately from the editorial byline.
Corrections, source disputes, missing-coverage requests, vendor briefings: editorial@aitaxpractitioner.com. Practitioner feedback is the highest signal we get — flag anything that's wrong or stale and we'll fix it.
REP status under §469(c)(7) is two tests plus a contemporaneous-log audit defense. We cover the rules, the 2020–2025 Tax Court pattern, and where AI fits in the workflow.
Running client data through an LLM triggers §7216. Here's the consent language Treasury Reg §301.7216-3 actually requires, the Rev. Proc. 2013-14 §5.04 mandatory boilerplate most practitioner templates omit, and a vendor-by-vendor compliance tier for every AI tool a US tax preparer realistically uses.
OBBBA renamed FDII to FDDEI and recalibrated the §250 deduction (37.5% → 33.34%, ~14% effective rate). QBAI is gone. Two new DEI exclusions hit transactions after June 16, 2025. The full TY2026 regime hits January 1, 2026. Most AI tools currently return mixed FDII/FDDEI terminology for a structural reason this article names.
OBBBA replaced the uniform 100% §1202 exclusion with a tiered 50/75/100% system at 3/4/5 years, raised the per-issuer cap to $15M, and lifted the aggregate-asset threshold to $75M — for stock issued after July 4, 2025.
OBBBA §70323 renamed GILTI to NCTI inside §951A. §70321 dropped the §250 deduction from 50% to 40%. §70323 eliminated the QBAI offset. §70312 cut the §960(d) FTC haircut from 20% to 10%. Effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Circular 230 binds your license; AI is what your license is now exposed to. §10.22 due diligence, §10.34 positions, §10.35 competence, §10.36 firm procedures, §10.37 written advice, and §10.51 disreputable conduct — mapped onto AI-assisted tax practice with verbatim regulatory text, the eight-case federal canon, and a defensible-workflow checklist.
AI-assisted FBAR for solo EAs and small-firm CPAs. Five workflow stages — account discovery, statement aggregation, currency conversion, signature-authority detection, §10.22 review trail. Post-Bittner penalties ($16,536 / $165,353 inflation-adjusted), crypto-NPRM stale-data trap, and a §7216-defensible vendor matrix.