Editor: James W. Sansone, CPA

Like the warning on a car’s side mirror reminding the driver that objects may be closer than they appear, it seems difficult for tax practitioners to share knowledge and work online without attaching a paragraph–long disclaimer. Although one may avoid this conundrum by not sharing anything publicly online, that isn’t a realistic option for most practitioners. Where more professionals are becoming online influencers, educators, and content creators, what are the risks tax professionals should keep in mind when creating online content?

The risk of being perceived as offering tax advice without full context or disclaimers

The primary guidance for tax practitioners on tax advice is found in Treasury Circular 230, Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service (31 C.F.R. Part 10). The sections concerning tax advice were last updated in 2014, when Treasury and the IRS eliminated the covered–opinion rules, intending to reduce the burden on practitioners and clients without compromising the quality of tax advice. The revised regulations extended the principles of Circular 230, Section 10.37,¹ to all written tax advice. The AICPA Statement on Standards for Tax Services (SSTS) No. 3,² last revised effective Jan. 1, 2024, also outlines additional standards on providing tax advice.

But here’s the tricky part: These standards and regulations on tax advice generally apply in the context of an established client relationship where a tax practitioner provides tax advice for a client’s specific facts and circumstances. So, does a tax practitioner’s social media post with tax planning tips constitute tax advice?

Based on regulations, case law, and other IRS guidance, it would likely be difficult to establish that a tax professional’s social media post is enough for a taxpayer’s reliance when taking a certain tax position. For example, Neonatology Associates, P.A., 115 T.C. 43, 99 (2000), aff’d, 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002), applied a three–prong test for reasonable reliance on professional advice (for purposes of a defense against Sec. 6662 accuracy–related penalties):

1. The adviser was a competent professional who had sufficient expertise to justify reliance;
2. The taxpayer provided necessary and accurate information to the adviser; and
3. The taxpayer actually relied in good faith on the adviser’s judgment.

This test is widely cited in case law and IRS guidance. When it comes to taxpayers relying on tax advice they read online — even assuming the first and third prongs are met — the second prong likely will not be satisfied by online content shared with the public and not specific to one taxpayer’s facts.

Regardless of whether a tax professional’s technical content shared online rises to the level of tax advice under professional standards and IRS guidance, in this online era, taxpayers can, and do, rely on tax professionals’ online content in preparing their tax returns.

The IRS has flagged reliance on social media for tax information as a rising risk issue. Every year, the IRS publishes a “Dirty Dozen” list of schemes to watch out for, and social media tax advice made the list in recent years. For example, in 2024, the IRS warned taxpayers about “wildly inaccurate tax advice” on social media that included encouraging taxpayers to file fraudulent Forms W–2, Wage and Tax Statement, and Forms 7202, Credits for Sick Leave and Family Leave for Certain Self–Employed Individuals.³

Although taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the accuracy of their tax returns, here are some ways tax practitioners can mitigate the risk of being perceived as offering tax advice when creating online content:

Use a disclaimer to clearly separate education from tax advice: It can be something as simple as, “This does not constitute tax advice. Contact a tax professional to understand how this may apply to you.” Disclaimers can also include the fact that your opinions are your own and do not represent those of your employer (this applies particularly to opinion–type content shared in a professional capacity). Discuss any disclaimers with competent legal counsel before use to ensure they adequately protect you and/or your employer.

Comply with firm policy: Your firm likely has one or more policies regarding social media use, so before sharing content online in a professional capacity, get familiar with your firm’s policies. Your firm may also have other resources to help grow your online presence while managing risk (e.g., marketing, compliance, legal, and risk departments).

Regularly review applicable regulatory guidance and professional standards, especially if you’re licensed in multiple jurisdictions.

Focus on education: If sharing technical content, try to focus on big–picture insights, trends, or frameworks, not individualized recommendations or specific client engagement details. Think more like a teacher than an adviser when creating online content. Once a prospect engages you as their CPA, you can move more into an adviser role, as you’ll have better knowledge of your client’s specific facts and can tailor your tax advice to the individual client.

Stay in your lane: Failure to advise or giving incorrect advice due to lack of subject matter expertise is a common pitfall in the tax profession. The context of online content creation magnifies the risk of such pitfalls. So, if you’re going to share technical information publicly, make sure you have the requisite knowledge and competency in the area you are sharing. Also, be wary of using sensational or misleading headlines or examples that could misrepresent your expertise or lessen the technical accuracy of the information.

Be cautious about how you engage with comments and questions online: Providing specific advice in response to comments can inadvertently create a client relationship or be perceived as personalized advice. Instead of offering individualized advice online in the comment section, offer to schedule a call to discuss further directly with a prospect.

Maintain boundaries: Personal posts often perform well on social media platforms, but for tax practitioners, it is important to not blur the boundaries between personal opinions and professional advice. A helpful way to do this is to come up with content “pillars” — a list of topic categories you want to focus on sharing online within your professional capacity.

By the same token, CPAs should exercise caution in obtaining their own information from online sources, making sure they are able to vouch for a source’s accuracy (see the sidebar, “On the Flip Side: Reliance on Internet Sources”).

The risk of accidental oversharing: Confidentiality and client privacy

A popular type of online content creation is sharing client “wins” and testimonials to market services.

Example: J, a CPA and a tax senior manager at a top 10 accounting firm, has his eye on the partner track and wants to leverage social media to help him grow his potential client base. So, he’s been posting a few times a week on social media. To promote his tax services, J shares a social media post about how his team recently helped a client claim a $20,000 tax credit. To better capture his ideal client, J describes certain details about the client, including the client’s industry and where the client is building a new location.

The details J shares are specific enough that people familiar with the industry could easily identify the client based on recent news and financial reports. Sharing details of a client’s tax strategies on social media without explicit client consent, even without naming them directly, constitutes not only a breach of confidentiality but may also be a violation under the criminal penalty provisions of Sec. 7216.

Client confidentiality is at the core of the tax profession. The Code, the regulations, and professional standards impose an ethical and legal responsibility to protect the confidentiality of client information, except for specific, permitted disclosures such as compliance with legal process or professional standards. For example, ET Section 1.700.001.01 of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct emphasizes that a member in public practice may not “disclose any confidential client information without the specific consent of the client.” SSTS Paragraph 1.3.4 requires members to “make reasonable efforts to safeguard taxpayer data, including data transmitted or stored electronically.” Sec. 7216 and its regulations prohibit “knowingly or recklessly” disclosing or using tax return information for a purpose “other than to prepare, or assist in preparing” an income tax return (Sec. 7216(a)). Tax return information includes a taxpayer’s name, address, identification number, and any other information furnished in any form or manner, for, or in connection with, the preparation of the taxpayer’s return by or on behalf of the taxpayer by a third party. States also have their own codes of conduct for accountants, with additional rules on client confidentiality for CPAs licensed and practicing in that state.

Here are some ways tax practitioners can mitigate the risk of accidental oversharing when creating online content:

Beware of sharing client stories without consent or adequate anonymization: If leveraging your work with specific clients to create online content, be diligent to either obtain proper client consent or redact the details of the engagement to maintain client confidentiality. Remember that even redaction may not be enough to mask the identity of client information where the situation is generally recognizable.

Opt for composite cases that illustrate common challenges: One strategy to mitigate the risk of breaching client confidentiality is using a hypothetical, common challenge a taxpayer may run into instead of specific client facts. In other words, imagine you’re writing a case study for a college class instead of a client testimonial.

When in doubt, seek counsel: If you’ve done your best to anonymize specific client testimonials or examples but are still unsure if it’s sufficient to maintain client confidentiality, reach out to your firm’s legal or risk department for a second opinion. A second set of eyes can help catch potential issues and provide valuable feedback.

In the same vein, there is also a risk of inadvertently disclosing firm strategies or proprietary information. Once again, working with other departments in the firm to vet your online content before sharing publicly can mitigate the risk of sharing something you shouldn’t.

In many ways, online content creation for tax professionals can feel like the Wild West — an unfamiliar new frontier with its own risks and rewards. A strong online professional presence can yield many benefits, including establishing authority in your industry, building trust, and attracting ideal clients or career opportunities. But all this comes with the responsibility of complying with relevant regulations and professional standards and mitigating potential risk exposure to your reputation, clients, and firm.

---

On the flip side: Reliance on internet sources

Statement on Standards for Tax Services Section 1.4 allows members to rely on tools in certain circumstances. In the explanation of the standard, Paragraph 1.4.6 specifically addresses the source of tools used and acknowledges that some sources should be considered to have more weight than others. The explanation gives the example that subscription-based tax research tools may be more authoritative than articles from independent internet sources. As another timely example, a member may use artificial intelligence (AI) to research a specific tax topic and/or draft advice on a particular topic to a client. Members should take care to evaluate and confirm all sources cited by AI. In multiple situations, AI has “hallucinated” law cases supporting a particular position.⁴ Just as tax practitioners should be cautious to avoid unintentionally providing advice to taxpayers in social media posts, they should also be cautious when considering the source of information they use to advise their clients. A tax professional must always thoroughly review AI-generated results and confirm their accuracy prior to using or sharing the information.

---

Contributors

David J. Holets, CPA, is a partner and leader of tax quality control functions in Indianapolis, and Yelena Sheremeta, J.D., is tax quality and risk senior manager in Stockton, Mo., both with Crowe LLP. James W. Sansone, CPA, is managing director, Office of Risk Management, with RSM US LLP in Atlanta. Holets and Sansone are members of the AICPA Tax Practice Responsibilities Committee. For more information about this column, contact thetaxadviser@aicpa.org.

---

Footnotes

¹Section 10.37(a)(2) provides that the practitioner must:

1. Base the written advice on reasonable factual and legal assumptions (including assumptions as to future events);
2. Reasonably consider all relevant facts and circumstances that the practitioner knows or reasonably should know;
3. Use reasonable efforts to identify and ascertain the facts relevant to written advice on each Federal tax matter;
4. Not rely upon representations, statements, findings, or agreements (including projections, financial forecasts, or appraisals) of the taxpayer or any other person if reliance on them would be unreasonable;
5. Relate applicable law and authorities to facts; and
6. Not, in evaluating a Federal tax matter, take into account the possibility that a tax return will not be audited or that a matter will not be raised on audit.

²Statement on Standards for Tax Services (SSTS) No. 3, Standards for Members Providing Tax Consulting Services, outlines the following standards for written tax advice (¶¶3.1.2 and 3.1.4):

• Use professional judgment to ensure that tax advice is competent and based on applicable standards.
• When communicating tax advice in writing, comply with relevant taxing authorities’ standards, if any, applicable to written tax advice (i.e., Circular 230).
• There is no required standard format for communicating written tax advice.
• For tax advice given to a taxpayer, a member should consider, when relevant, (a) return reporting and disclosure standards applicable to the related tax position and (b) the potential penalty consequences of the return position.
• There is no professional obligation to communicate the impact of subsequent developments that affect advice previously provided to taxpayers, regardless of whether the taxpayers are current clients.

³IRS News Release IR-2024-98.

⁴See, e.g., Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 1:23-CV-281 at *2, 3 (E.D. Tex. 11/25/24).