This tactic then has a threefold effect: it reinforces the client’s beliefs, challenges the preparer’s, and – worst of all – influences others to take the same position.

Many preparers operate in small offices, where a lot of ‘client nepotism’ exists. I have had three or four clients who’ve all not only known each other, but know each other’s finances as well. If X takes a deduction, I can bet that Y and Z will be asking about it as well. And damn it all to hell if X and Z aren’t supposed to be taking it, but Y can. I’ll have to deal with the whole ‘why can’t I…?’ b.s. issue.

I could go on, but I think we’ve all been there, so we know this scenario. Over time, with no punishment, and clients demanding to cheat to the max, the preparer’s ethics slip. And lest you say ‘the preparer should stand on principle,’ or ‘the preparer should educate the client,’ I will retort thusly – by ‘educating’ the client, what you’re really teaching them (inadvertently) is how to lie to the preparer down the street. Because a client who really, really wants to cheat will simply go elsewhere next year. And if you have enough work that you don’t mind, great. But if things are tight….

As an old boss of mine used to say, “everyone’s a tax cheat, it’s just a matter of degree.” I do my best to be diligent AND ethical, but there have been times when I was fairly certain I was being lied to (but had no way to prove or otherwise challenge it). Clients who have been through an audit are great; they’ve been through hell, and don’t want to go back. It’s the ones who think they’re bulletproof who annoy me to no end.