Chapter 4 of Licensed to Exploit: The OBTP Accountability Project
When the Oregon Board of Tax Practitioners says that a tax preparer must be licensed “in this state,” they don’t mean what you think they mean.
They don’t mean physically in Oregon. They don’t mean domiciled or doing business in Oregon. They don’t even mean operating with an Oregon tax practice.
They mean: if you prepare an Oregon return—from anywhere on Earth—you’re “in this state.”
They’ll cite statutes. They’ll cite consumer protection. They’ll quote phrases like “in this state” and “within this state.” But what they won’t do—what they have never done—is define what that phrase actually means. Ask them to pull out a dictionary. They won’t.
Because once they do, their entire theory unravels.
A Phrase Without a Boundary
It began with a question: what gives OBTP the authority to license people who live and work outside of Oregon?
That question was ignored, dodged, and deflected. For weeks.
When I pressed the Board’s Executive Director, Laura Kardokus, she told me DOJ would be in touch. When I pressed DOJ Senior Assistant Attorney General Catriona McCracken, she responded by pasting in long lists of statutory citations—none of which defined “in this state.” All that effort to flood me with references they would later attempt to weaponize, when in reality most of it was little more than ctrl+f window dressing posing as legal rigor.
Eventually, McCracken offered this:
“The legislature specifically delegated to the Board the authority to determine the qualifications of applicants for licensure if they wish to practice ‘in this state’ or ‘within this state,’ and did so notwithstanding the location of the applicant’s office, as a matter of consumer protection.”
That’s not interpretation. That’s circular reasoning. That’s inventing your own powers that the legislature never gave you, nor would they.
OBTP is saying: we have the authority to regulate anyone who practices in this state—even if they’re not in this state—because we get to decide what ‘in this state’ means.
But, hey. As they love to say themselves, we all know Oregon is “quirky.” That’s adequate justification. Right?
When Meaning Is Inconvenient
I asked for a statutory definition. They provided none.
I asked for the Board’s formal interpretation. They sent me a settlement agreement with H&R Block—one that had nothing to do with geography and everything to do with a lapsed license.
I asked whether they had internal memoranda or rulemaking files supporting their position. They gave me redactions, disclaimers, and a $6,000 invoice.
Then, in what became a running theme, McCracken told me she couldn’t offer legal advice—despite clearly presenting herself as the Board’s mouthpiece.
When I pointed out that I wasn’t asking for legal advice but for the agency’s interpretation, she repeated herself:
“The interpretation you seek has already been provided to you.”
This is the logic of control. A theory backed by repetition. A policy built on silence.
Defining “In This State” Would End the Game
If the Board admitted that “in this state” meant geographically within Oregon, their enforcement reach would stop at the border.
They wouldn’t be able to license tax preparers in Utah. They wouldn’t be able to penalize firms in Texas. They wouldn’t be able to threaten compliance from people in Kansas, Florida, or New York.
So instead, they preserve the ambiguity. They never define the term. They wield it like a weapon.
And when pressed, they refer you to a settlement, or a statute that says nothing new, or a FAQ that quietly disappeared once litigation began.
This isn’t regulation. This is empire-building.
And what do you need to build an empire? That’s right. Capital. LOTS of capital. From anywhere and anyone you can get it from.
Next: The Vanishing FAQ – How OBTP deleted the very guidance it was enforcing, and what that tells us about the rules they claim to follow.