- This topic has 10 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi Everyone,
I know the consensus on deducting CPA review materials is (for the most part) a big no, as it is considered to be “a minimum job requirement” for public accounting, but I would like to suggest that this is not necessarily the case for some individuals – keep in mind that I’m not encouraging anyone to take an illegal tax position, I just want to bounce some ideas around. I am starting at one of the big four next fall, and I’m doing a little tax research because I know that the costs of Becker (covered by firm) will be showing up on my W2.
If the deduction is dismissed on the grounds that it is a “minimum job requirement” for those individuals working at the big four in public accounting (tax or audit), then the argument is flawed in a sense. Although the big firms provide a bonus for passing the CPA exam within the first two years, it is not a requirement for those years (just strongly incentivized). In addition, consider the turnover rate during those years – most people don’t stick around for more than 2-3 years before they steer clear of public accounting for good.
So, can the costs of pursuing a CPA license really be considered “a minimum job requirement” for everyone?
I just finished reading about the employer paid education expenses (exclude from income up to $5,250 per year) while studying for REG and it sparked my interest. By no means am I some tax expert, I just thought it would be an interesting discussion amongst all of us CPA candidates!
FAR (7/19) - 91
REG (8/30) -
BEC (10/01) -
AUD (11/20) -Review Materials: Becker - Online and Flashcards
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.