Practices and Procedures · Requirements for Enrolled Agents

Information to be furnished to the IRS

Q: A practitioner may decline to submit requested records where:

B. They believe in good faith and on reasonable grounds that the records are privileged — Circular 230 § 10.20(a)(1).

Q: Records are held by neither the practitioner nor the client. The practitioner must:

B. Notify the IRS promptly, supply what they know about who holds them, and make reasonable inquiry of the client — Section 10.20(a)(2) requires inquiry of the client only.

Q: OPR asks a practitioner about a colleague's alleged Circular 230 violation. The practitioner:

B. Must provide the information and testify in any proceeding instituted under the part — Section 10.20(a)(3).

Q: IRC 7525 privilege does not apply to:

B. Communications concerning tax shelters

Q: A practitioner asserts blanket privilege over an entire file without considering its contents, to delay an examination. This:

B. Breaches § 10.20 and may also breach § 10.20

Verification 2026 Verified
tax year · reviewed 2026-08-18 · I. Ohu

Section 10.20 is short and does more than it looks. It obliges a practitioner to hand over records on request, gives one exception — a good-faith belief in privilege — and then adds a second, separate duty that catches practitioners by surprise: where the inquiry is into someone’s alleged Circular 230 violation, the practitioner must give information and testify.

The rule

Records and information. On a proper and lawful request by a duly authorised IRS officer or employee, a practitioner must promptly submit records or information in any matter before the IRS — unless the practitioner believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that the records or information are privileged (Circular 230 § 10.20(a)(1)).

Where the practitioner does not have them. If the requested records are not in the possession or control of the practitioner or the practitioner’s client, the practitioner must promptly notify the requesting officer and provide any information they have about who may have possession or control. The practitioner must make reasonable inquiry of their own client — but is not required to inquire of any other person, and not required to independently verify what the client says (§ 10.20(a)(2)).

Disciplinary inquiries carry a duty to testify. On a proper and lawful request concerning an inquiry into an alleged violation of Circular 230, a practitioner must provide any information they have concerning the alleged violation and testify regarding that information in any proceeding instituted under this part — subject to the same good-faith privilege exception (§ 10.20(a)(3)).

Interference is separately prohibited. A practitioner may not interfere, or attempt to interfere, with any proper and lawful effort by the IRS, its officers or employees, to obtain any record or information — unless the practitioner believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that the record or information is privileged (§ 10.20(b)).

The privilege that exists is narrow. IRC § 7525 extends the common law protections of confidentiality applying to attorney-client communications to communications between a taxpayer and a federally authorised tax practitioner, but only in non-criminal tax matters before the IRS and non-criminal proceedings in federal court, and it does not apply to communications about tax shelters. There is no accountant-client privilege at large.

How it works in practice

“Promptly” and “proper and lawful” are the two hinges. The obligation is not to hand over whatever is asked for on any terms — it attaches to a proper and lawful request from a duly authorised officer. But once that is met, delay is itself a breach, and § 10.23’s prohibition on unreasonably delaying the disposition of a matter runs alongside.

The good-faith exception protects a belief, not an outcome. A practitioner who withholds on reasonable grounds, believing in good faith the material is privileged, has complied with § 10.20 even if a court later disagrees. What is not protected is a reflexive assertion of privilege made to buy time or to shield the client from an unwelcome question — that is not good faith, and it exposes the practitioner under both § 10.20 and § 10.51.

The inquiry duty in (a)(2) is bounded, and knowing its limits is useful. Reasonable inquiry of the client — yes. Inquiry of third parties, or independent verification of what the client says — no. A practitioner who relays the client’s answer about where records sit, having asked properly, has done what the rule requires and should not be pressed further.

Paragraph (a)(3) is the one to warn colleagues about. Being asked about another practitioner’s conduct is not a matter the practitioner can decline as none of their business. The duty to provide information and to testify in a subpart D proceeding is express, and the only exception is the same privilege ground.

Records the client no longer holds

A revenue agent asks a practitioner for three years of a client's bank statements. The client closed the account and kept nothing. The practitioner has never held them.

Analysis. Section 10.20(a)(2) applies. The practitioner must promptly notify the agent that neither they nor the client has the records, and must supply what they know about who might — here, the bank. They must ask the client who may have possession or control, and that is the extent of the inquiry: no duty to approach the bank, and no duty to verify the client's answer. Doing more is not required; doing less is a breach.

Privilege asserted to buy time

Facing a request for engagement correspondence, a practitioner tells the agent everything in the file is privileged, intending to slow the examination while the client decides what to do. He has not considered which documents might actually qualify.

Analysis. The exception in § 10.20(a)(1) requires a belief held in good faith and on reasonable grounds. A blanket assertion made without considering the documents is neither. Worse, § 10.20(b) separately prohibits interfering with a proper and lawful effort to obtain records, so the same conduct breaches two paragraphs — and willfully violating a regulation in the part is sanctionable under § 10.52(a)(1).

Questions about another practitioner

An enrolled agent is contacted by OPR about a former colleague's conduct on a shared client. She considers it a professional matter between the colleague and OPR and declines to discuss it.

Analysis. Section 10.20(a)(3) is express: on a proper and lawful request concerning an inquiry into an alleged Circular 230 violation, a practitioner must provide the information they have and testify regarding it in any proceeding instituted under the part. Only the good-faith privilege ground excuses it, and privilege belongs to the client rather than to the colleague. Declining is itself a violation.

Traps

The exception is a good-faith belief on reasonable grounds, not a later finding of privilege.

Reasonable inquiry runs to the client only. No duty to ask third parties or verify what the client says.

Paragraph (a)(3) compels testimony in a disciplinary proceeding about another practitioner.

Interference is a separate breach under § 10.20(b), so one act can violate two paragraphs.

IRC § 7525 is not an accountant-client privilege at large. Non-criminal tax matters only, and never tax shelters.

How this has changed

Section 10.20 has been stable since T.D. 9011 (67 FR 48765, 26 July 2002), which gave it its present structure, with T.D. 9527 (76 FR 32286, 3 June 2011) making it applicable to conduct on or after 2 August 2011. What has moved around it is the privilege the exception depends on. IRC § 7525 was created by the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 and did not exist when the earlier versions of this rule were written; its exclusion of communications about tax shelters was widened by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, so material predating that describes a broader privilege than the one now available.

Exam focus

The obligation is to submit promptly on a proper and lawful request from a duly authorised officer. The single exception, and its formulation — good faith and reasonable grounds. The bounded inquiry duty in (a)(2): the client, and no further. The testimony duty in (a)(3) for disciplinary inquiries. That § 10.20(b) makes interference a separate violation. Expect § 7525’s limits to appear alongside, particularly the tax shelter exclusion.

Check yourself

1. A practitioner may decline to submit requested records where: (A) The client instructs them not to (B) They believe in good faith and on reasonable grounds that the records are privileged (C) A fee dispute is outstanding (D) The request is inconvenient Answer: B. Circular 230 § 10.20(a)(1).

2. Records are held by neither the practitioner nor the client. The practitioner must: (A) Obtain them from the third party (B) Notify the IRS promptly, supply what they know about who holds them, and make reasonable inquiry of the client (C) Do nothing further (D) Independently verify the client’s account Answer: B. Section 10.20(a)(2) requires inquiry of the client only.

3. OPR asks a practitioner about a colleague’s alleged Circular 230 violation. The practitioner: (A) May decline as it does not concern their own client (B) Must provide the information and testify in any proceeding instituted under the part (C) Must provide information but need not testify (D) May respond only under summons Answer: B. Section 10.20(a)(3).

4. IRC 7525 privilege does not apply to: (A) Non-criminal tax matters before the IRS (B) Communications concerning tax shelters (C) Communications with an enrolled agent (D) Non-criminal federal court proceedings Answer: B.

5. A practitioner asserts blanket privilege over an entire file without considering its contents, to delay an examination. This: (A) Is protected by § 10.20(a)(1) (B) Breaches § 10.20 and may also breach § 10.20(b)‘s bar on interference (C) Is a matter for the client alone (D) Is permitted if the client agrees Answer: B.

Change log

2026-08-18Initial publication from Circular 230 §§ 10.20 and 10.51.