Should I trust someone who says they read the tax code for me?
The claim: “Trust the online tax expert; they read the Code for you.”
False: check the primary source
Not on its own. Under Treas. Reg. §1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii), conclusions in treatises, articles, and opinions of tax professionals are not authority; the Code, regulations, rulings, and cases are. A summary can point you to a rule, but you should check the actual text. For example, IRC §162(a) requires expenses to be both ordinary and necessary, and §262(a) separately disallows personal expenses.
Reviewed by Ebot Mbi, CPA, EA · Last reviewed · Law and figures current as of September 17, 2026
Key takeaways
- Primary authority includes the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury regulations, revenue rulings and procedures, and court decisions.
- Treas. Reg. §1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii) states that opinions of tax professionals are not authority.
- Short summaries often drop qualifying words, such as the word "and" in "ordinary and necessary," or omit a limiting section like §262.
- The IRS listed misleading tax advice on social media in its 2026 Dirty Dozen.
- Checking the cited section, and asking what other sections limit it, is a practical first step.
Where the claim comes from
Tax content on social media is often presented with confidence and a section number. Viewers reasonably assume that someone who cites the Code has read it closely and applied it correctly.
Sometimes that is true. But a short video rarely has room for the conditions, exceptions, and related sections that decide how a rule applies to you. The IRS's 2026 Dirty Dozen list includes misleading tax advice on social media, warning that viral tax hacks can lead people to file returns with false information or claim credits they do not qualify for.
What the law actually says
The tax law is built from primary sources. Treas. Reg. §1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii), which defines authority for the substantial authority standard, lists the Code and other statutes, regulations, revenue rulings and procedures, court cases, committee reports, and certain IRS pronouncements. It then states that conclusions reached in treatises, legal periodicals, legal opinions, or opinions rendered by tax professionals are not authority, although the authorities they cite may be.
A common example is IRC §162(a). It allows a deduction for the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or business. That sentence has several requirements, and each must be met. IRC §262(a) then disallows personal, living, and family expenses unless the Code expressly provides otherwise, and IRC §274 adds limits and record rules for meals, travel, gifts, and vehicles. A summary that quotes only §162 can leave out the sections that decide the outcome.
Advice from a professional can still matter for penalties. Under IRC §6664(c) and Treas. Reg. §1.6664-4(c), reasonable reliance on competent professional advice, based on all pertinent facts, can support penalty relief. General content not directed at your facts does not meet that standard.
What is true and what is not
It is true that the Code is public and that anyone can read a section. Reading the actual text is one of the most effective ways to test a claim you see online.
It is not true that a summary, however confident, substitutes for the source or for advice on your facts. Tax rules often depend on definitions in other sections, regulations, and case law. Reading one section is a good start, not the end of the analysis.
- Find the section cited, or ask for it if none is given.
- Read the full sentence, including every condition joined by and.
- Look for limiting sections, such as §262 for personal expenses or §274 for meals and travel.
- Check whether regulations or IRS guidance define the key terms.
- Confirm the rule is current, since laws such as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act changed many provisions.
What to do instead
Treat online content as a prompt for questions. Pull up the cited section on a primary source site such as the Legal Information Institute or the IRS website, and read it in full. If the claim relies on words that are not in the statute, or ignores a limiting section, be cautious.
Before you put a position on your return, get advice that is based on your complete facts. Keep a record of what you provided and what you were told, since that documentation is what supports reasonable reliance if a question arises later.
How ebotCPA helps
We review the claim you have seen, identify the controlling sections and regulations, and explain in writing how they apply to your facts, with citations you can check yourself.
Book a $497 Case Analysis to have Ebot Mbi, CPA, EA review your facts before you act.
Frequently asked questions
Where can I read the Internal Revenue Code?
Title 26 of the U.S. Code is available free on the Legal Information Institute (law.cornell.edu) and on government sites. Treasury regulations are in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Is a tax professional's opinion authority?
Not for the substantial authority standard. Treas. Reg. §1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii) says professional opinions are not authority, though the sources they cite may be.
Can I avoid penalties by relying on something I saw online?
Generally not. Reliance supports penalty relief when it is reasonable and based on advice that considered your complete facts, not general content.
How do I check whether a tax tip is current?
Read the current text of the section and check for recent changes, including amendments made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and for IRS guidance issued since.
Have facts like these?
Book a $497 Case Analysis to have Ebot Mbi, CPA, EA review your facts before you act.