Agran v. Shapiro
California Court of Appeal
273 P.2d 619, 127 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 807 (1954)
- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Reuben Agran (plaintiff), a certified public accountant admitted to practice before the United States Treasury Department, was hired by Morris and Helen Shapiro (defendants) to prepare their tax returns. The Shapiros had forfeited $43,260.56 of a deposit they paid to guarantee a loan in a used-automobile business. Agran filed an application for a tax-loss carryback adjustment for the Shapiros’ previous tax years. Agran told the Shapiros that because the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) typically audited such applications, he could not determine his fee until he spoke with a Treasury agent. Agran was contacted by a Treasury agent regarding the application. Agran performed legal research and cited cases to successfully convince the Treasury agent that the Shapiros’ forfeited deposit qualified as a net operating loss. Agran then submitted a bill to the Shapiros for his services. The Shapiros refused to pay the bill, arguing that Agran’s actions constituted the unauthorized practice of law. Agran brought suit seeking payment. The trial court granted judgment in Agran’s favor, and the Shapiros appealed. On appeal, Agran argued, citing a persuasive New York case, that giving legal advice was not the unauthorized practice of law if incidental to the preparation of a tax return or other tax matter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Patrosso, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
