Chapter 6 of Licensed to Exploit: The OBTP Accountability Project
The phrase “in this state” is the cornerstone of OBTP’s licensing theory—but it’s also the foundation of their hypocrisy.
Because while they insist that anyone, anywhere who prepares an Oregon return is “in this state” for the purpose of licensure, that standard doesn’t apply to everyone.
Not if you’re a CPA. Not if you’re an attorney. Not if you’re an employee of a CPA. (And, of course, they don’t specify that if you’re one of these, in any state, you’re exempt. Oops. Forgot to put that on the FAQ, huh?)
For those categories? The Board carves out broad exemptions.
They cite statutes like ORS 673.605(10) and 673.610(2)(c), which exempt CPAs and attorneys from licensing when preparing Oregon returns—regardless of where they live or work.
So let’s be clear:
A partner at a Big Four firm in New York can prepare thousands of Oregon returns and supervise dozens of staff—all without Oregon licensure.
But a Utah tax preparer with Enrolled Agent credentials, and a Master’s degree in Taxation from Weber State University (not sponsored or affiliated with this content), helping one Oregon client? Must pay. Must register. Must comply.
The same act. Different treatment.
Privilege by Profession
This isn’t about public protection. It’s about professional pedigree.
The Board doesn’t scrutinize the scope of these exemptions. They don’t question how much oversight a distant attorney actually has. They don’t ask whether CPA firms are training employees on Oregon-specific tax law. They just wave them through.
Meanwhile, tax professionals without those titles—EA, other, or those carrying OBTP-issued (and OBTP-sold) designations like LTC and LTP—are held to a stricter, costlier, and geographically unbounded standard.
In the name of protecting consumers.
Except it doesn’t protect them. It just picks winners.
When Exemptions Become Weapons
In practice, OBTP uses these statutory carveouts as shields for institutional power. Their exemptions apply only where convenient, and their enforcement reaches only as far as their revenue model requires.
If you’re large, credentialed, or lawyered up? No problem.
If you’re small, remote, and outside the political power zone? You’re “in this state.”
That’s not law. That’s favoritism. That’s selective enforcement.
And every time they cite “in this state” to justify that disparity, they deepen the very inequality they claim to be regulating.
Next: Paper Empires – How the OBTP built a licensing regime on loopholes, ambiguity, and fear.