[itooshallpass]

I just read a blog post from Roger CPA Review saying you should push to take REG before the new changes hit the exam on July 1. Their reasons were to avoid having to relearn everything from college tax classes and to become a CPA faster in order to meet the higher demand as clients need help navigating the changes.

I’m not sure I agree with this reasoning and I’d like to hear what others think as well. Before the new bill, I was planning to take REG in May or June after my first tax season this year. Now I’m thinking I should take it after July 1, after I’ve had time to study the new content. I have barely any experience since I’m brand new, plus my tax classes in college sucked so I don’t feel like I’d be throwing away much there. I feel like it’s more worth my time to learn and test on the new content since that’s what I’ll be working with for the next however many years. I’m sure I’d have a different perspective if I had a few years of tax experience, but where I’m at currently it seems like a waste of time to study current/old tax law. What do you guys think?

[Tim]

I'm curious about this too as I have 2 exams left, one that I'll take before July 1st and one that I'll take after and I can do them in either order. There was a thread regarding it before (before the final bill was passed) where it sounded like the REG material would just become easier with less things tested, but I'm not sure that's actually the case. A lot of the things the Republicans/Trump were trying to get rid of are still there, just with different thresholds.

Yeah, there's an argument that it would be beneficial to learn the new tax law. But I care more about passing the exam than learning the new tax law right now. But I also don't work in tax. If you work in tax then knowing the new tax law very quickly would be hugely beneficial, I'd think.

[Bourne]

If the timing is right, I'd wait to take REG until after the changes. I definitely wanted to go this route, but did not want to wait 6 months before taking REG. If you only have to waste a month or two waiting for the new material to be tested, it's definitely more beneficial. After all, your clients and colleagues that trust you will not care what the tax laws were before the change. For the next however many years you will be helping clients based on the new laws, so if you're not delaying your next exam for 6 months, it's worth it.

Of course, you can learn the new laws on your own, but I would not rush an exam into the window before the exam just to beat the clock and try for an easier exam.

[aaronmo]

The CPA exam isn't about learning new material, or job training…it's about getting a license. I'd take it as quickly as possible to get the content that the exam prep courses have more experience with.

[Bourne]

You're completely wrong. The CPA exam definitely can be about learning new material. You're missing the point of the license – the public trusts that you have the knowledge to protect and help them financially. The point isn't to just obtain the license and then not use that information to help other people/businesses and if that is your point, I doubt you're a very big asset to the company you work for. Granted, you can learn the new material on your own, but the exam forces you to learn that new material to pass.

I guess it's all about your mentality and your goals.

[aaronmo]

You're completely wrong. You're going to be researching everything as you do it…most of the leg work is being done by a program that you're essentially back stopping. And then getting reviewed by someone above you. That's how you learn tax…and it's a lot less about a rule and a lot more about the grey area and knowing what the averages are at income levels/industry. That's something you'd only know by doing it. It's a lot less about what a rule is than it is about what's likely to trigger an issue.

Most of the challenge to a real tax job is state/local…which the CPA exam isn't going to do a damned thing to help. I remember almost nothing from the exam and I learned tax by doing it…while utilizing past background.

Maybe after you get your license you'll understand how the real world works. It's not job training. That's what the CPA experience is for. You clearly haven't done tax at any real level if you think that REG is prepping you for it.

Signed – a licensed tax guy.

[Bourne]

I'm well aware how the real world works. You and I are coming from two different worlds. I'm in private, you're clearly in public. I have done tax in public but very minimal. I never said REG was prepping you for tax preparation, I said it's more beneficial to clients that you help to know the material and know it when they need the answer and REG can help with that.

In private, it doesn't work like that. I can tell you from experience, if you know what you're talking about and don't have to “research everything” and can give guidance on the spot, you'll be promoted much quickly in a fast paced environment such a companies here in NYC.

If your goal is to stay in public and work as a lonely little associate the rest of your life and not interact with clients (because in client meetings they will ask you how a certain situation impacts them) you can't say “hang on a minute, let me google it”.

Yes, you can obviously learn it over time, but companies want to promote people who know cutting edge things and people who know the new laws, not people that have to look everything up or learn it with two year's experience.

It all depends on your goals.

Your bio says it all lmao

[aaronmo]

Yes – you're coming from fantasy world without knowing what the hell you're talking about. And at higher levels of private that's how it works too. You're a junior child. Listen – don't speak.

[Bourne]

At higher levels of private that is not how it works lol what's wrong with you? You have no idea.

[Anonymous]

Aside from the above argument:) I generally agree with aaronmo in that you aren't taking the CPA exam to learn the material in the way that will benefit you in the job place necessarily. You are studying for the test, more than anything. This exam is very broad and shallow in scope so to speak, it touches on a bunch of different topics in not that much detail, so if you were to learn to tax on the job, it would be completely different than what is covered by the CPA exam prep course.

[Reverie]

Anyone who has ever delved into history and politics know that standardized tests for the most part are bullchit. Most of us learn by doing. You can't blame the individual for having a “lack of interest” just because he/she sees the CPA as an obstacle to get rid off. The test is basically the government's way of controlling the profession. With that said, it is what it is. I ain't the president. We're COGs in a Machine. So we just gotta pass this test.

[Anonymous]

If you can afford the time to wait after July 1st, then take it at that time. I took 2 tax classes several months before REG but studying for it made everything click so much better than the classes. I've become more interested in individual taxation because of REG.

I think the exam will help you understand the basic foundation of the concepts but it's through actual work you'll learn much more.

If you aren't going to be working in tax and don't plan to apply that knowledge through other means (ex. volunteering) then take REG as soon as you can.

[x260bm]

Take it before. Most of the changes expire, so you have to know both the old way and the new way. Plus some of the things they put in like the section 199a deduction are just brutal.

[aaronmo]

There is just so much bad “advice” above…

The rules of accounting (and, more critically, best practices) are complicated enough that, unless you're VERY specialized, you will have to look things up, or double check them. This is especially critical if you understand that laws and best practices are organic, evolving and changing. It is 100% appropriate to tell a client you want to double check something and will call them back…we do it all the time. Partners, seniors, staff, etc. people with 30 years of experience. It's a broad enough subject that you just can't remember everything…or be confident it didn't change in some way since the last time you did it. I've worked in corporate…at various levels…for quite a few years…and if you're in legal/accounting, you are ALWAYS double checking, researching, consulting…from the CEO on down. I have NEVER seen a VP, or Director, give a fast answer in legal/accounting that wasn't basic.

Most decisions in a corporation are not made by a subject matter expert…they're based on risk and probabilities assessed by a subject matter expert. Often they're made by a one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind…and I say that as a one eyed man who was a decision maker. Generally, my instincts are pretty good and I did well. The reality is that if you think corporations, or firms, are well oiled machines making great decisions based on code…by subject matter experts…promoting the person who remembers the most rules…you just don't get it. At all.

People who give you fast answers, or are sure of themselves, in accounting, or legal, are not people you want to listen to. There's a big difference between confidence and ignorance…and some of Bourne's comments above are firmly in that second category. That crap might fly in sales…but not in compliance, or management. Unless you're a very narrow drone…someone who does one area…or unless you're a BS artist, or in finance (same thing), you are going to be researching. All of the time. And the higher up you get, the less sure of yourself you'll be…because it's not rules, it's risk and probabilities. The key is to sort of know what you don't know, understand how to find out, and have a rough idea of the framework. If you think the CPA exams are ever going to teach you more than a rough idea of the frame work, you don't understand accounting.

[Author]

Replies