Proposal to create entry-level tax aide draws split testimony on workforce and regulation

House Bill 2,338 would establish a new lower-level, supervised credential to allow individuals to perform limited tax-office tasks under the supervision of a licensed tax consultant. Supporters said the measure creates an entry point into the tax-preparation profession; some opponents said it creates an unnecessary licensing burden and urged amending the bill to remove education or exam prerequisites.

The bill was discussed Feb. 25 by the House Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. Laura Cardokas, executive director of the Oregon Board of Tax Practitioners, and Rachel P. Bradley, vice chair of the board, testified the program was developed by board representatives and industry associations to address a decline in licensees and help people gain hands-on experience. Cardokas said the board and its associations are willing to change the proposed name from "Certified Tax Aide (CTA)" to "Registered Tax Aide (RTA)" to reduce confusion with certified public accountants and to ask the committee to adopt the -1 amendment allowing some substitution between education and experience for applicants.

Cardokas described the proposal as an "apprentice-type" pathway: a lower-skill applicant would take half the education of the current licensed preparer requirement (a 40-hour course in the introduced draft) and work under a licensed tax consultant who would supervise the aide. The draft would allow each licensed tax consultant to supervise at most two tax aides.

Proponents from firms and practitioner groups said the change would expand hiring options for small businesses and reduce burnout among existing preparers. James Amos, district manager for Jackson Hewitt in Oregon, told the committee the shortage of preparers has produced backlogs and errors; he described the proposal as a practical way to build a labor pipeline without requiring early, costly exam and class commitments. Anne Burgess, president of the Oregon Society of Enrolled Agents, and Eve Davis, past president of the society and a longtime preparer, supported the concept but urged the committee to remove the 40-hour education requirement and the exam for the entry-level aide so the position can function as a true entry job.

Opponents argued the bill as written would expand the board’s regulatory reach and duplicate protections the IRS already permits for purely clerical assistance. Chad Mangum said the Oregon Board of Tax Practitioners is already involved in litigation over prior rulemaking and warned against giving the agency more authority. Mangum and other opponents requested that the Legislature instead clarify statutorily that supervised clerical staff may assist under licensed oversight without new licensure.

Other opponents, including Kathy Baker and Nikki Sloop, urged removal or revision of specific subsections (they identified sections in the introduced draft) and said the board had previously adopted a rule change in 2013 that limited data-entry roles; they argued the proposed structure still would be too burdensome for small practitioners unless education and testing requirements are removed.

Supporters proposed practical changes at the hearing. The board confirmed the $75 initial certification fee in the draft, said it does not have a precise enrollment forecast and expects outreach to community colleges and volunteer tax programs (VITA, Cash Oregon) to build interest. Multiple preparers and firms asked removal of the 40-hour course and the initial exam as a condition of employment for an aide, arguing supervised on-the-job training is sufficient consumer protection.

The committee took testimony from both sides and asked questions about the program’s scope, whether unpaid volunteers would remain outside board jurisdiction (the board confirmed unpaid volunteers remain unregulated), and how the new credential would differ from clerical staff inside CPA firms. No vote or committee action was recorded in the hearing transcript.

Ending: Supporters and opponents acknowledged the bill’s aim to address workforce shortages; they disagreed on the necessity of classroom hours and testing for an entry-level position. The board and proponents said they are open to name and technical changes and expect further amendment before a work session.