You’ve seen this email. Two lines confirming lunch. Under the signature, a full paragraph announcing that any U.S. federal tax advice in the communication was not intended or written to be used, and could not be used, to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.
There was no tax advice. Just a lunch confirmation.
I see this email signature all the time: scheduling emails, questions, “thanks, got it.” I understand why it’s there. It looks careful. It looks official.
But Circular 230 never required that paragraph on every email. And in 2014, Treasury eliminated the covered-opinion rules that prompted its widespread use. T.D. 9165, T.D. 9668.
Here’s why the disclaimer existed, why its regulatory purpose disappeared, and what belongs in your communications instead.
How the disclaimer took over
In December 2004, Treasury issued T.D. 9165, adding the covered-opinion rules at former §10.35 of Circular 230. They applied to written advice rendered after June 20, 2005.
The rules covered certain written advice—including electronic communications—concerning federal tax issues arising from listed transactions, arrangements with a principal purpose of tax avoidance or evasion, and certain arrangements with a significant tax-avoidance or evasion purpose.
Advice in that last category could qualify as a covered opinion if it was a reliance opinion, a marketed opinion, or subject to confidentiality conditions or contractual protection. A reliance opinion generally concluded that at least one significant federal tax issue was more likely than not to be resolved in the taxpayer’s favor. T.D. 9165, former §10.35(b)(2)–(7) and (g).
If your advice qualified, detailed requirements followed for factual and legal analysis, conclusions, and disclosures.
Then came the escape hatch.
Former §10.35(b)(4)(ii) allowed certain advice to avoid reliance-opinion classification through a prominent penalty disclaimer. Former §10.35(b)(5)(ii) provided a similar exception for marketed opinions, with additional disclosures about promotion and independent advice. Neither exception applied to listed transactions or principal-purpose arrangements. Other routes to covered-opinion status remained. T.D. 9165, former §10.35(b)–(e).
The familiar legend became a way to manage a burdensome classification problem. Firms attached it broadly, and it spread far beyond the tax advice that prompted it.
There’s a quiet irony here. After T.D. 9201 revised the prominence standard in May 2005, a disclosure had to be readily apparent to the reader. At a minimum, it had to appear in a separate section, outside a footnote, in type at least as large as the discussion of facts or law. T.D. 9201, former §10.35(b)(8).
Eight-point gray text below your phone number was hard to square with that requirement. Some footers may not have accomplished their intended purpose even while the rules were in effect.
Treasury removed the reason for it
On June 12, 2014, Treasury published T.D. 9668. It removed the covered-opinion rules, replaced former §10.35 with a competence standard, and revised §10.37 to provide one framework for written federal tax advice. T.D. 9668.
The preamble addressed disclaimers directly: Treasury and the IRS expected the amendments to end their routine use in emails and other writings.
Officials said it out loud, too. At a June 20, 2014, NYU tax conference, then-Director of the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility Karen Hawkins told practitioners to remove the disclaimer because it was no longer necessary. Then-Chief Counsel William Wilkins pronounced the legend “really most sincerely dead.” BNA Daily Tax Report, June 24, 2014, reprinted on IRS.gov.
On a June 17, 2014, Tax Talk Today webcast, Hawkins said her office would send letters asking practitioners to stop using disclaimers claiming that the IRS or Circular 230 required them. Her concern was misleading taxpayers about the requirements. Tax Notes Today, June 18, 2014, reprinted on IRS.gov.
Those are contemporaneous press accounts of the officials’ remarks, not regulations. They reinforce the formal explanation in the preamble.
Retaining an obsolete legend is different from claiming the IRS requires it. The amendments created no standalone prohibition on leftover boilerplate, but attributing a blanket requirement to Circular 230 misstates the rules.
Why it survives
So why is it still everywhere more than twelve years later? Circular 230 no longer supplies a reason to keep it. Habit does plenty of the work.
Templates never die. Somebody set up the firm signature in 2006. New hires inherit it on day one.
Risk theater. A paragraph of legalese feels protective. But language tied to rules removed in 2014 makes the firm’s templates look outdated.
“We’ve always done it.” Removing the warning label feels riskier than leaving it, even after its regulatory purpose has disappeared. Doing something one way because you have always done it that way is never a good reason.
It’s also worth reading the legend literally. It tells your client that the advice cannot be used to avoid penalties.
The old exception concerned classification under Circular 230. It did not itself decide whether a taxpayer could establish reasonable cause and good faith.
Today, reasonable reliance under IRC §6664(c) and Treas. Reg. §1.6664-4 depends on the facts and circumstances. A boilerplate footer does not automatically defeat a client’s reliance-on-advice defense. Treas. Reg. §1.6664-4(b)–(c).
Still, it creates an unnecessary mixed message: you are giving advice while telling the client not to rely on it for penalty protection. Why attach that message to every email?
What the rules require now
Current §10.37(a)(2) requires practitioners giving written federal tax advice, including electronically, to:
Use reasonable factual and legal assumptions.
Consider facts they know or reasonably should know.
Make reasonable efforts to identify relevant facts.
Avoid unreasonable reliance on others’ representations.
Apply law and authorities to the facts. (You know, you the professional. Not AI)
Disregard the chance of escaping audit or scrutiny.
Section 10.37 also governs reliance on another adviser and evaluates compliance under a reasonable practitioner standard. That assessment considers the engagement and requested advice; certain marketed opinions receive particular attention to risks from unfamiliar taxpayer circumstances. 31 C.F.R. §10.37(a)–(c).
Together, §§10.35 and 10.37 establish the core competence and written-advice standards. Diligence, penalty-advice duties, and firm compliance procedures also remain relevant. Circular 230, §§10.22, 10.34–10.36.
There is no prescribed blanket footer. A signature disclaimer cannot cure deficient advice; omitting it does not itself violate the standard.
Treasury’s December 2024 proposal, REG-116610-20, would retain the principles-based approach, amend wording and definitions, and remove the separate provision in §10.37(c)(2). It would not restore the legend. 2024 proposed amendments.
As of October 7, 2026, there is no published final rule implementing that proposal. The eCFR, updated through October 5, still contains the existing provisions. Current Circular 230. I look forward to getting an update to Circular 230, but I am not holding my breath that it will be anytime soon.
What to write instead
So what belongs at the bottom of your email? Usually, nothing about Circular 230.
The 2014 preamble permits reasonable, accurate statements limiting particular advice. T.D. 9668.
If you give a preliminary answer based on limited facts, explain that in the body, where the client will see it:
“This is based on what you’ve told me so far. If any of these facts are different, my answer may change.”
Better still, identify the particular assumption or unanswered question that matters. That helps the client understand the advice and when to come back to you.
What you should not do is blame the IRS. Don’t introduce the old blanket disclaimer with “Circular 230 requires” or “IRS rules require us to inform you.”
Other footer language deserves its own assessment. Confidentiality notices, attorney privilege legends, and marketing disclosures should be evaluated separately. Keep language that serves a real purpose, and consider what protection it actually provides.
A quick cleanup
Start with your email signature:
Remove the obsolete Circular 230 paragraph, including from your phone’s signature.
Check firm templates, letterhead, and engagement-letter boilerplate for the same language.
If signatures are managed centrally, have the firm update the shared template.
When particular advice needs a scope limitation, explain that limitation accurately and in plain English in the advice itself.
That footer was a workaround for rules that have been gone longer than many of our client relationships have existed.
What protects you and your clients now is the care in the advice: the facts you gathered, the law you applied, and the limits you explained honestly.
That is worth more than a paragraph (that few will read) under your phone number.
How often do you still see this disclaimer? Are you updating your email signature right now?