I am writing with respect to the article in the News Digest section ( JofA, Dec.01, page 16) concerning Grant Thornton’s reaction to BDO Seidman’s lawsuit filed against the AICPA, CPA2Biz and Shared Services. In the article, the reporter stated, “According to published reports, CPA2Biz’s independent auditor Grant Thornton disputes the suit’s merits even though the firm itself offers services comparable to the portal’s.”

In the only such published report of which we are aware, Grant Thornton took no position on the merits of the lawsuit. Instead, Grant Thornton was quoted as stating as follows: “We are shocked by the suit brought by BDO Seidman, and do not believe any global accounting firm would be a part of a suit against CPA2Biz. We believe that the AICPA is working for the best interest of the accounting profession, and that disputes should be handled internally, rather than in court.”

As an aside, we were surprised that CPA2Biz had not informed its own auditor, Grant Thornton, that BDO had attempted to discuss this matter privately, but to no avail.

If that is the published report to which the reporter was referring in the article, BDO kindly requests that the description of Grant Thornton’s position be corrected in next month’s JofA . If there are other published reports to which the reporter was referring, please direct us to them.

Howard B. Allenberg
Vice Chairman and Chief Information Officer
BDO Seidman, LLP
Chicago

Editor’s note: The JofA staff believes its reporting on this subject constituted fair comment on a subject important to readers.

I read the article “ Employment Benefits and Divorce ” ( JofA, Feb.02, page 40) and question the inclusion of field service advice (FSA) 20005006 as an authority in taxing options transferred in a divorce—an FSA is nonbinding and cannot be cited as precedent.

The FSA references letter ruling 8813023 in support of its position. This ruling was rejected by the tax court in Balding v. Commissioner, 98 TC 368, which ruled in favor of the same taxpayers involved in the private letter ruling.

As further support, the field service advice cites Gibbs v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1997-196. In that case, the taxpayer received a property settlement paid out over the course of 10 years, and the trial court required interest to be paid on the installments. The taxpayer tried to exclude the interest income as part of the property settlement. The tax court held that the interest was not part of “any gain presumably included in the principal portion” of the marital property.

The FSA gives no consideration to other positions taken by the IRS. Letter ruling 943310, for example, has long been the guideline in California and comes to a completely different conclusion.

This article is not the first I have seen to cite FSA 20005006. However, a critical review of its citations indicates that giving this field service advice any recognition, let alone a full paragraph, really overstates its importance.

Bruce Morrison, CPA
San Jose, California

I would just like to express my appreciation for the Technology Workshop series and Technology Q&A articles that appear in the JofA . Since my primary role is that of analyst, I spend a great deal of time working with Excel and other Microsoft Office applications. Therefore, I find these sections of the magazine interesting, informative and quite relevant to everyday life.

I hope you continue with these quality articles.

Michael Kinahan, CPA
Boston