For what it's worth, the rationale for the standard change may be a concern
that anyone teaching in a discipline should hold a graduate degree in that
same area. Additionally, an accounting masters might ensure that the
individual is not too focused on the "law" and not enough on the
"accounting" or "business" issues of taxation. However, as a JD,LLM,CPA
(though with an accounting PhD) I personally fail to see the need for a
requirement for an accounting masters. The CPA designation should in itself
demonstrate knowlege and familarity with accounting & business issues.

Of course, I'm probably over-analyzing this. However, one of my colleagues
is a JD/LLM/CPA and is concerned about this proposal. Obviously, it is just
a proposal and subject to change, hopefully back to the original language.

Given the tight job market faced by accounting departments, it would
probably be in their best interests to allow as many folks as possible to
qualify academically as tax faculty.

Stephen C. Gara,  JD, LLM, PhD, CPA
Assistant Professor of Accountancy
Long Island University - C.W. Post Campus
Brookville, NY  11548
516-299-2085 (voice)
516-299-2297 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
http://phoenix.liu.edu/~sgara/home.htm



----- Original Message -----
From: Woods, Dexter <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Blue Ribbon Committee


> As another JD with an LLM in Taxation (also with CPA credentials and
without
> a master's in accounting), I would naturally agree than an LLM would seem
> more than sufficient.  The old and new language are set forth below for a
> closer comparison.
>
> Old language:  "A doctoral degree in the area in which the individual
> teaches.  This qualification includes individuals holding the JD degree
who
> teach business law or legal environment of business and individuals who
> teach taxation holding (1) LLM (in taxation)/CPA, or (2) JD with an
> accounting master's degree."
>
> Proposed new language:  "A doctoral degree in the area in which the
> individual teaches.  This qualification includes individuals holding the
> appropriate law degree who teach business law or legal environment of
> business and individuals who teach taxation holding an appropriate law
> degree with an accounting master's degree."
>
> With respect to the old language, I have thought the "LLM (in
taxation)/CPA"
> wording meant a person who had an LLM in tax AND who also was a cpa (with
> the interposing slash being conjunctive).
>
> With respect to the new language, it seems as if the LLM/CPA person would
> not qualify.  Considering the omission of that language, I think it quite
> possible that a person with an LLM would not be included as qualified.
> Arguably, perhaps, an LLM who is not also a CPA, could be thought of as
not
> being able to teach "the differences between financial and tax
accounting",
> a component of the model tax curriculum.  However, an LLM who is also a
CPA
> should have no problem teaching that component.
>
> Like Tom, I would feel uncomfortable relying upon the theory of
unspecified
> inclusion.  I hope that we can find out the rationale for the changes and
> get the language clarified.  We may also be able to get the language
> otherwise improved.  I wonder if there is a difference between "THE
> appropriate law degree" for teaching business law and "AN appropriate law
> degree" for teaching taxation.  I also wonder if the grammatical principle
> of parallelism might be better employed!
>
> Dexter Woods, J.D., LL.M, C.P.A.
> Professor of Law and Taxation
> College of Business Administration
> Ohio Northern University
> Ada, Ohio  45810
> [log in to unmask]
> 419-772-2075 (voice mail)
> 419-772-1498 (facsimile)
> http://www.onu.edu/business/woods.htm
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zupanc, Thomas [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 5:14 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Blue Ribbon Committee
>
>
> As a JD with an LLM in taxation who teaches undergraduate level personal
> income tax, I whole-heartedly agree with Al Roline, who must be a
> doggone genius.
> The new draft language, which states the "qualification includes ...an
> appropriate law degree with an accounting master's degree" could be
> interpreted to mean that is merely one example of the necessary
> qualification.  However, my family and I would like some explicit
> language addressing the JD and LLM.
>
> Tom Zupanc
> St Cloud State University
> BB 255
> 420 Fourth Ave South
> St Cloud MN 56301
> 320 529 6678
> "The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax"  Albert
> Einstein
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan C. Roline [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 1:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Blue Ribbon Committee
>
>
> Just wanted to point out that I believe that the draft document does
> appear
> to narrow the field (probably to the detriment of a few of our members)
> as
> to who is terminally qualified to teach taxation.
>
> The new draft states: "This qualification includes . . . individuals who
> teach taxation holding an appropriate law degree with an accounting
> master's
> degree."
>
> Didn't the old standards permit a J.D. with an L.L.M. in taxation (but
> no
> accounting master's degree) to be considered as terminally qualified??
>
> While this may affect only a few, I believe if one is teaching tax, an
> L.L.M. in taxation SHOULD generally be treated at least as equivalent to
> the
> masters in accounting (which may or may not have included much taxation
> in
> the curriculum)-- but what do the rest of you think?
>
> Al
> ____________________________________________
> Alan C. Roline, Chair
> Department of Accounting & Business Law
> ____________________________________________
> University of Minnesota Duluth
> 125 School of Business and Economics
> 10 University Drive        Duluth,  MN 55812
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Telephone:(218)726-8550    Fax:(218)726-8510