Who Owns Your Tax Advice?

The Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) passed recent legislation in Sept. 2007 allowing patents for "tax strategies." It's been argued by John R. Thomas, of CRS's Resources Science and Industry Division, that tax advice constitutes a creative product eligible for protection. His position is based mainly on grounds that because "biotechnologies, business methods and other innovations" have been allowed for several years and not caused harm to the "U.S. innovation environment" under patenting laws, the growth of intellectual property should naturally encompass the area of tax advice.

But!!!

….for "patents in general," is a temporary halt on competition really conducive to better competition (i.e., a better product) in the long run? For this case, does this even consider how much value are we really losing by the time the restriction to our innovative freedom is lifted? Seems like a risk too volatile to want to undertake.

On the idea of "Tax Strategy," if the tax code is complicated enough to need trained professionals to complete the work already, why create a monopoly on already regulated ways to complete that work? The issue seems like it's not whether a creative product exists, but whether it hurts the public's innovative freedom as a whole to protect something which shouldn't be protected. Seems like a clever way to reduce controversy over tax shelters to gain revenue for Big Four companies still agonizing over SEC probes, or to further promote Private Letter Rulings (which I personally don't have a problem with for other reasons), and lastly, and most problematic --another way to create government profit.

Next time you have an idea or need advice about taxes, maybe it's time to look up whether the PTO already has it on file.