Discussion:EA vs. CPA exam
From TaxAlmanac
| Revision as of 19:26, 22 May 2006 Martineo (Talk | contribs) (I agree with you) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 22:16, 22 May 2006 Oaxacquita (Talk | contribs) (SandyEA....unlik) Next diff → |
||
| Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
| Chris2lane was asking for that information because he is planning to take the test. | Chris2lane was asking for that information because he is planning to take the test. | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Oaxacquita|Date=22 May 2006|Text=SandyEA....unlike the professionals in the financial industry, the medical profession has a 3 year residency requirement before you truly go out and practice on your own. This residency requirement usually takes place in a training hospital, where you are being trained and your progress monitored by other medical doctors. The financial industry doesn't even come close to even having this type requirement, so I don't think it's accurate to compare MDs to people in the financial industry with cute letters after their names. How many CFPs, EAs or CPAs go through an exhaustive training period before they are allowed to practice on their own ? This is the reason I believe those initials are meaningless without the experience to back it up. If these professional organizations truly wanted to test someone's knowledge, they would make you go through exhaustive training period before you earn the right to use the designation. My neighbor's kid is a CPA after a one year training period, but he doesn't know squat about taxes or financial accounting. Bottom Line: Don't get caught up in all the hype of financial industry designations -they're just marketing tools. }} | ||
Revision as of 22:16, 22 May 2006
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> EA vs. CPA exam
Chris2lane (talk|edits) said: | 4 February 2006 |
| I am an ATP and recently became a CFP. I an now considering taking the Enrolled Agent exam or CPA exam. I work in a small 2 man accounting firm. I am leaning towards the EA exam because our bread and butter is taxation. For those of you with both certifications, which exam did you find more difficult and why? Any feedback would be appreciated. | |
| 4 February 2006 | |
| I have taken both exams. The CPA exam is about 100 times more difficult than the EA exam. If you passed the CFP exam, you should have no difficulty in passing the EA exam (I took the CFP exam as well).
The EA exam is an exam covering basic tax law. The CPA exam is an exam covering accounting, business law, auditing, and accounting. Most states are requiring at least 5-years of study before sitting for this exam. | |
| 4 February 2006 | |
| I am currently just a "Tax Preparer", but depending on how things go, am thinking of taking the EA exam at some point. How long does the education generally take and how long is the EA exam? I've heard it's a two day exam. | |
| 5 February 2006 | |
| It depends on your experience. I have seen experienced preparers pass the exam without study. However, I recommend taking an assessment exam to see where you stand. Gleim Publications offers some very good interactive material for this purpose. | |
| 5 February 2006 | |
| Hi Skhyatt,
I passed only the SEE (Special Enrollment Exam), and I compared to Riley, I feel like a bug!!!! LOL... Anyway, I was preparing to go for my CPA when an instructor, an Enrolled Agent, asked me what I really wanted to do. So, like a lot of us, I said, "I want to do taxes!" She recommended the SEE. So, I quit my well paying job last July and stayed at home to study for the SEE; Every day, eight hours a day, for 3 months. I took the exam in September, 2005, and passed, and am currently in the application process (Form 23). Being 41, I Will say that CPA's know a lot about case study and law review. I'm a newbie, and I am now seriously considering working for a CPA firm simply for the extended experience. Taxes are only one part of being a CPA, and this is reflected in their training and on the exam. I personally don't want to do trail balances and audits, I want to do taxes. I am looking forward to the time when my experience will allow me to represent taxpayers before the IRS. | |
Chris2lane (talk|edits) said: | 5 February 2006 |
| Thanks Riley2. Since you passed the CPA, EA, and CFP exams, how would you compare the CPA to the CFP exam? Thanks. I studied for almost 4 months for the CFP and passed first time out (after taking the exam I didn't think I passed). Thanks. | |
| 5 February 2006 | |
| Also,
Forgive my typoooos....trail balances....the Santa Fe Trail Balances...... Please give yourself plenty of time to study for the SEE; even if you have lot of tax experience, unlike me. The Partnership and Corporate tests focus on unique issues that do not always arise in the world of day-to-day taxation. There are specific areas of study that the IRS "tweaks" out on. Riley is the exception to most of us. What he, or she thinks, is particular to him. The SE is tough. With a 30% pass rate, I was really worried that I would succeed. In fact the person that wrote the exam books was surprised that I passed; which is not saying much for his books.... but, I did study a lot. You will not learn taxes from the SEE. What you will learn are some basic foundations that link most taxable entities together. | |
| 5 February 2006 | |
| Hello Gmikeg,
Now, forgive my ignorance. I've not heard of the SEE. How does that compare to EA? Congrats on passing! | |
| 5 February 2006 | |
| The SEE (Special Enrollment Exam) is the same as the enrolled agent’s exam.
Chris2Lane, I would have to say that the CPA exam is considerably more difficult than the CFP exam; however, I would say that if you have an undergraduate degree in accounting with at least a B average, I wouldn’t think you would have any problem with the CPA exam. Skyhatt, since I know nothing about your background, it would be impossible for me to say whether the EA exam will be challenging or easy for you. I do know that Gleim has a battery of assessment tests that you can use to design your own EA study program (using Gleim’s assistance and materials). Some of my employees were able to cut their study time down to a few hours after isolating their weak areas. In addition, if you decide to sit for the CPA exam, Gleim’s CPA review program and outlines are outstanding. My wife used some of Gleim’s business law outlines to study for the California bar exam. | |
| 5 February 2006 | |
| I am assuming that the SEE/EA "status" raises your earning power. By how much would you say, compared lets say to a "tax preparer" who has the same amount of experience. | |
| 5 February 2006 | |
| I am not sure about that. As an unenrolled preparer, you may not represent a taxpayer in any IRS proceeding. I would think that this is a major handicap. I would think the hours you spend studying will be adequately rewarded with a better quality practice. | |
| 5 February 2006 | |
| That's what I was trying to say, I think. Two preparers, one is an EA, one is not. I would think that the EA would have the greater earning power. | |
DR BRISKET (talk|edits) said: | 5 February 2006 |
| Nearly 20 years ago I opted to pursue the EA credentials as opposed to a CPA designation. I have operated a small accounting practice over the years where I have worked with numerous small businesses. In addition, I of course prepare tax returns.
I did pass the SEE exam and each year thereafter have taken the required CPE credits to maintain my EA status with the IRS. In my opinion, having the EA initials after my name really doesn't have any affect on my earning power with my clients. What does is my reputation, as it really should be with any professional preparer. However, studying for and taking the EA exam did open up my eyes to the many different aspects of the whole taxation process. Oftentimes I become overwhelmed at everything. Its almost like the more I research and study the IRC code, the less I know--kind of like digging deeply into the Bible. This year I am really grateful to have come across this forum. I have already gleaned tons of useful information and I wish to thank everyone for their contributions. Let's face it. None of us know the answers to every situation every time. But it is really nice to be able to exchange opinions and share what we know with each other. A great day to everyone!! | |
| 6 February 2006 | |
| My two cents worth... I appreciate reading Riley2's comments and feedback, but was shocked with his/her comment, "I would say that if you have an undergraduate degree in accounting with at least a B average, I wouldn’t think you would have any problem with the CPA exam." I took the exam in 1986, before it was computerized, before you could take it throughout the year and before you could take one part at a time (NC rules). I took Becker CPA review for 5 months and studied more than I had the entire 4 years it took to get a BS in Accounting and the required 5th year, altogether. I consider myself humbly blessed that I passed the exam the first time (I studied with a girl who was sitting for the 7th time!) because it was extraordinarily difficult. Five years of education, A or B average, will not suffice. Hours and hours, months and months of studying was required by virtually everyone I know who has taken the exam. For what it's worth. | |
| 6 February 2006 | |
| I am glad to hear LJCPA's comment. I have taken/passed two of the four exams, but studied like crazy for both. I have friends who work at big 4 firms, are better students than I, have studied for and taken all four sections and not passed them all. While the test is simpler to focus for (one section at a time), it is by no means something a would-be applicant could/should take for granted. An accounting degree will not prepare you for the CPA exam. It is a great start, but simply a foundation to which the review course materials can stick. Good luck to you who have decided to make the commitment to pass the exam. I believe that in the business world there are only two sets of intials that really carry any weight: CPA and MBA. In my biased opinion, CPA rates higher. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. | |
| 6 February 2006 | |
| I graduated with a B- average and I took the CPA exam in 1976 when it was largely an essay exam, and I did not take a review course (although I bought a set of $60 outlines from Gleim). I was fortunate enough to pass without having to repeat. I agree that the CPA exam was extraordiarily difficult, and I would have preferred to sit for one part at a time, instead of sitting for a 19 1/2 hour marathon. Frankly, I did not encounter anything on the CPA exam that was not covered in my coursework in college. In fact, many of my professors gave CPA exam questions for mid-terms.
My sister, who is also a CPA, decided to do sit for the exam without an accounting degree, and she did just fine, although she had to buy a full-blown review course. One of the secretaries in my firm also sat for the exam with just a high school education and she passed alll 4 parts on the first sitting (although the firm paid for a Becker course). | |
| 6 February 2006 | |
| Riley2, I don't there are many people in this forum that would disagree with my observation that you could very well be an outlier in that regard. A solid review course will teach you the exam and if you follow it you should pass, that is their sole purpose. Each state is slightly different, but I was under the impression that to qualify to sit for the exam you must have coursework in accounting. Given the payoff, I wouldn't tell someone in a public forum that they should pass the exam without the caveat of a sacrifice of time to absorb the material. If you are seriously considering taking and passing the exam, wouldn't it be prudent to fully prepare yourself for each exam? | |
| 6 February 2006 | |
| I thought I was prepared for the exam, based on my experience with prior year exam questions.
I live in California, and individuals who meet certain requirements may sit for both the California bar exam and the CPA exam without a college background (although a law degree is required for the bar). The CPA exam is uniform throughout the United States (at least it used to be). California has introduced legislation to create its own version of the exam due to legislative concern that the existing exam was not a good indicator of professional competence. I do not recommend sitting for the CPA exam with only a high school education. This is more torture than anyone should have to endure. | |
| 7 February 2006 | |
| LAST TIME I CHECKED , IN FLORIDA, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LOT OF CREDITS IN ACCOUNTING TO QUALIFY FOR THAT EXAM.
I WAS LOOKING IN A MANUAL AND , I AGREE WITH RILEY2 , CPA EXAM IS HARDER THAN OTHERS. | |
| 20 May 2006 | |
| Riley2... Um almost every state in the union requires a minimum of 150 hours of education for a CPA licence, and even CA requires a undergraduate degree and 24 semester hours in accounting, just to sit for the exam (you still have to meet 150 hours for the licence). While you might have had the privlage of taking it before that particular requirement, Every one today has to have at least a undergraduate degree. And belive it or not the national pass rate is always below 20% so obviously a undergraduate degree does not mean you should be able to breaze through the exam.
If any of you need to know the education requirements for your state they are published by the national assosiation of State Boards of Accountancy, and your local State Board of Accoutancy: http://www.nasba.org/nasbaweb.nsf/exam | |
| 21 May 2006 | |
| I cannot speak for states other than California. In California, a “pathway 0” candidate without a college degree may currently sit for the CPA exam if he first passes the CLEP test (College Level Exam Program). After passing the CPA exam and satisfying the experience requirement, the “pathway 0” candidate may be licensed without further educational requirements. | |
| 21 May 2006 | |
| I took the CPA exam shortly after the computerized format was introduced. There are still four sections (Financial accounting, auditing, "business environment/concepts", and "Regulation/business law"). I was lucky to pass on the first try, but I wonder if the passing rates were skewed upward due to the change in format. I studied all summer using review books from Wiley, and apparently it worked.
Talking with other people, there's usually one section of the CPA exam that gets people (often financial accounting). After repeated test taking, some people form a mental block I guess. Interestingly, I found studying for the bar exam required more time and effort than the CPA exam, but the the bar passing rate in my particular class was around 90-something percent. | |
| 21 May 2006 | |
| Riley is partially correct with regards to CA requirements, see actual requirements below. CA requirements are much more liberal (imagine that!) than the two states I am certified in, Texas and Michigan. I believe Riley is referring to Alt 4 below, which, contrary to Riley, does require at least 10 semester units of accounting subjects from a university...... as well as successful completion of any "two" CLEP exams. In my opinion, CA requirements have the effect of watering down the requirements to sit for the exam.
A CPA that passed the exam under CA requirements would have a lot of work to do to become certified in the state of Michigan (via reciprocity). Michigan, as well as most states, has adopted the 150-hour requirement as suggested by the AICPA. PATHWAY 0 – SECTION 5083 Alternative 1. Baccalaureate or higher degree. The applicant must have completed a minimum of 45 semester units in accounting/auditing and business-related courses, of which at least 10 semester units must be in accounting/auditing. Alternative 2. The equivalent to Alternative 1, obtained outside the United States. An evaluation by a Board-approved evaluation service must be obtained and include a course-by-course breakdown. Official evaluations must be mailed to the Board directly from the Boardapproved credential evaluation service. See Page 23 for a complete list of Board-Approved Foreign Credentials Evaluation Services. The applicant must have completed a minimum of 45 semester units in accounting/auditing and business-related courses, of which at least 10 semester units must be in accounting/auditing courses. If the required accounting/auditing and business-related units were not completed within the foreign education, the applicant must have completed the remaining required units at a U.S. degree-granting college, university or other institution of learning as indicated under Pathway 0 Recognized Schools above. 21 Alternative 3. 120 semester units of study with no degree. The applicant must have completed a minimum of 45 semester units in accounting/auditing and business-related courses, of which at least 10 semester units must be in accounting/auditing courses. Alternative 4. Successful completion of any two general College Level Examination Program (CLEP) examinations and 10 semester units of accounting subjects from a university, college, or other institution of learning accredited by a regional or national accrediting agency. Pathway 0 Experience Requirements Depending upon an applicant’s education, P0 requires a 24, 36, or 48-month experience requirement that must include attest experience. Although no minimum number of hours has been prescribed for licensure, it may be difficult for an applicant to obtain Section 11.5 experience of a sufficient character and variety in less than 500 hours. Section 5083 of the California Accountancy Act requires a 36-month experience requirement if an applicant meets Alternatives 1 or 2 as described under P0 Educational Requirements. Section 5084 of the California Accountancy Act allows qualifying applicants under Alternatives 1 or 2 to reduce the experience requirement to 24 months, if the applicant has graduated from a regionally or nationally accredited educational institution and has completed a minimum of 20 semester units, or the equivalent, in accounting/auditing courses. Section 5083 of the California Accountancy Act requires a 48-month experience requirement if an applicant meets Alternatives 3, 4, or 5 as described under P0 Educational Requirements. All experience must be performed in accordance with applicable professional standards. Experience obtained through employment in public accounting will be considered to have met the general experience requirement only if it was performed under the supervision of an individual holding a valid active license or comparable authority to practice public accounting in any state or country. 22 Experience obtained through nonpublic accounting will be considered to have met the general experience requirement only if it was performed under the supervision of an individual holding a valid active license to practice public accounting in the United States. Applicants must meet the requirements for “active” status when they are approved for initial licensure. Therefore, it is required that the applicant have current knowledge of the practice of public accounting. This knowledge is demonstrated for initial licensure by completion of the current exam and/or license experience within the past five years. | |
Oaxacquita (talk|edits) said: | 22 May 2006 |
| I always hear this discussion, "Which exam is more difficult: EA, CFP or CPA ?" Just because you passed a difficult exam, doesn't in any way make make you a better financial planner, tax preparer or bookkeeper. It just basically means you passed an exam. It doesn't mean anything else !!! I know people who don't have any of these designations and they are simply outstanding professionals in their fields. So don't kid yourselves into believing that just because you have these designations, you are more knowledgeable than your colleague next to you who may not have these letters next to his or her name. Knowledge comes with experience, not by studying for some exam. How many of you remember a quarter of what you studied 2 months after you passed the exam ? Obviously, the organizations that promote these designations have done an excellent job of marketing their designations so you believe their publicity. | |
| 22 May 2006 | |
| I agree somewhat oax...we can have designations and letters and initials and they don't always lend any amount of expertise, however, it DOES show that the person with the designations knew enough to pass the exam and they know how to study and get answers. Nothing will ever take the place of seat of your pants learning, but I don't think I would go to a doctor who did not have md after his name. The same is true of any profession, but I think I will go to my md (medical diety) he is not...hehe, but he did learn enough to "practice" medicine on me... | |
| 22 May 2006 | |
| I agree with you Oaxaquita-
Chris2lane was asking for that information because he is planning to take the test. | |
Oaxacquita (talk|edits) said: | 22 May 2006 |
| SandyEA....unlike the professionals in the financial industry, the medical profession has a 3 year residency requirement before you truly go out and practice on your own. This residency requirement usually takes place in a training hospital, where you are being trained and your progress monitored by other medical doctors. The financial industry doesn't even come close to even having this type requirement, so I don't think it's accurate to compare MDs to people in the financial industry with cute letters after their names. How many CFPs, EAs or CPAs go through an exhaustive training period before they are allowed to practice on their own ? This is the reason I believe those initials are meaningless without the experience to back it up. If these professional organizations truly wanted to test someone's knowledge, they would make you go through exhaustive training period before you earn the right to use the designation. My neighbor's kid is a CPA after a one year training period, but he doesn't know squat about taxes or financial accounting. Bottom Line: Don't get caught up in all the hype of financial industry designations -they're just marketing tools. | |


