Employee Benefits / Tax Attorney — Section 127 Opinion (Paid Consult First, Then Scoped Opinion)

We need an employee-benefits or tax attorney to assess a specific, somewhat novel Section 127 question and — if the analysis supports it — write a reliance opinion. This does not start with a commitment to write the opinion. It starts with a paid 1–2 hour consultation to review the question and give us your read. If the fit is right, we scope the opinion from there. We pay your professional rate for the consult, and we value a candid "here's where this is weak" over an easy yes. If Section 127, fringe-benefit valuation, or FMV inclusion is in your wheelhouse, this is an unusually interesting question with real analytical meat to it. Why this is worth your time - Low commitment to start. A paid scoping consult, not a blind opinion request. You look before you stake your name on anything. - A genuinely novel question. The measurement of the Section 127 exclusion for employer-provided instruction (Form C) is barely addressed in public guidance. This is real analysis, not template work. - A client who understands the work. We know a reliance opinion on a novel position is a serious engagement. We've structured it in phases, we'll pay your professional rate, and we've built in a stop-work provision so you're never obligated to push toward a conclusion the analysis doesn't support. - Candor is the deliverable. If your honest read is "this doesn't work," that is a successful, valued engagement — not a disappointment. The question (high level) Under a Section 127 educational-assistance program, an employer provides employees access to a structured educational platform. The core question is whether the fair market value of the education delivered (per Treas. Reg. § 1.127-1(a)(2) read with § 1.61-21(b)(2)) — rather than the employer's cost — is a defensible measure for the exclusion, and where the legal limits of that position fall. A related question concerns the use of an independent published classification/valuation standard as documentation. We've done substantial groundwork: a methodology, supporting materials, an existing CPA analysis, and a written memo that identifies the principal counter-arguments ourselves. You would not be starting from a blank page. Specific figures and detail are shared under an engagement agreement. How the engagement works 1. Paid initial consultation (1–2 hrs). You review a background memo and give an initial read: is this dead on arrival, or is there something here worth analyzing? Paid at your professional rate. 2. Preliminary written assessment (if warranted). A deeper read and a scope/quote for a full opinion. Internal use only. 3. Full reliance opinion (if the analysis supports it). Quoted separately after step 2, with a stop-work provision if an unresolvable obstacle appears. You are never asked to commit to a later phase before the earlier one tells you it makes sense. Who we're looking for - Licensed U.S. attorney in good standing (state of admission is not limiting — this is federal tax law) - Real depth in employee benefits, ERISA, executive compensation, or fringe-benefit / fringe-valuation tax — Section 127 or FMV-inclusion experience is ideal - Experience writing reasoned legal memoranda / tax opinions with a stated confidence level - Willing to say "no" or "here are the limits" when the analysis warrants To apply (brief is fine) 1. Your relevant benefits / fringe-benefit tax experience 2. Any experience with Section 127 or fair-market-value inclusion specifically 3. *Optional but appreciated:* in a sentence or two, what's the first counter-argument that comes to mind against using fair market value (rather than employer cost) as the measure for a Section 127 exclusion? No research needed — just your instinct. It helps us find the right fit fast. 4. Your consultation rate (the full-opinion fee can be quoted after the consult) 5. State(s) of admission and confirmation of good standing Rate: $150–250/hr for the consultation and assessment phases; the full-opinion fee is scoped and quoted separately, so this range is not a cap on the opinion itself. We're looking for one attorney who finds this question genuinely interesting and will give us a straight answer. If that's you, we'd like to talk.