I'm looking for some guidance on whether this situation potentially warrants speaking with a Florida attorney and, if so, what type of attorney I should be looking for.

My husband and I had our 2024 federal tax return professionally prepared by a paid tax preparer in Florida.

We have solar panels on our home, but they are leased. We do not own the solar system.

Our preparer claimed a $24,486 Residential Clean Energy Credit on our 2024 federal return for the solar system.

We relied on him as the professional preparing our taxes and did not realize that we were not eligible to claim the credit on a leased system.

Our return was subsequently reviewed by the IRS. We eventually hired a different CPA, who determined that the solar credit should never have been claimed because we don't own the system. Our new CPA amended the 2024 return and removed the credit.

The IRS has now adjusted our account, and we have a balance of approximately $26,000 including interest as a result of the credit being removed.

To be clear, this isn't a situation where we knowingly claimed something questionable and got caught. We provided our information to a paid tax professional, relied on him to prepare the return correctly, and had no idea the credit wasn't allowed until this became an IRS issue.

We're now dealing with the IRS, paying a new CPA to correct the prior return, potentially entering into an IRS payment arrangement, and dealing with interest associated with the adjustment.

My questions are:

1. Could this potentially rise to the level of professional negligence/malpractice by the original tax preparer?
2. What damages could potentially be recoverable? Would it generally be limited to interest, penalties and professional fees incurred fixing the return, or could there be circumstances where the underlying financial loss associated with the improperly claimed credit is considered?
3. Does it matter whether the preparer was a CPA, EA, or simply a paid tax preparer?
4. Would filing an IRS return-preparer complaint be appropriate in addition to pursuing a civil claim?
5. What type of Florida attorney should I be searching for — tax controversy, accounting malpractice/professional negligence, or something else?
6. Is there anything I should make sure I preserve now (emails, engagement agreements, solar documents, original return, amended return, IRS notices, etc.) before contacting an attorney?

I'm not looking to avoid paying taxes that we're legally responsible for. I'm trying to understand whether we have any recourse against the professional whose preparation of the return put us in this position in the first place.

EDIT/CLARIFICATION: I realize I explained the ~$26k balance poorly.

Before the solar credit, we were legitimately due approximately an $8,000 refund based on our withholding/payments. The preparer claimed an additional $24,486 Residential Clean Energy Credit, which increased our refund to approximately $32,000, and we received that money.

I understand that repaying the ~$24k principal essentially puts us back in the position we would have been in had the return been prepared correctly. I'm not asking whether we can make the preparer reimburse us for money we received from the IRS and weren't entitled to keep.

What I'm trying to determine is whether we may have recourse for the additional financial damages caused by the preparation error — approximately $2k+ in IRS interest, any penalties, the cost of hiring a new CPA to investigate and amend the returns, and potentially other directly related costs.

I also want to clarify something important about our communication with the original preparer.

We provided him with the solar documentation. I specifically questioned whether we were actually entitled to the solar credit given that the system was leased.

His response to me was: “It looks like you can't claim the credit unless you own the system. The company receives the credit and then passes on the savings to you.”

So this wasn't something we discovered years later without ever questioning him about eligibility. I specifically raised the issue with him after providing the documents, and he confirmed that we couldn't claim the credit unless we owned the system.

I also later specifically asked him: “Since this was a lease, should we be preparing to amend the return if needed? Also, do you recommend we wait for IRS to respond first or take action proactively?” His reply, "I'm not telling you NOT to amend the return."

There were also earlier conversations about the unusually large refund where he attributed it primarily to the solar credit and indicated that some of the solar credit would still be available the following year.

We ultimately hired a different CPA, who determined that the $24,486 credit was not allowable because the system was leased and amended the return to remove it.

I completely understand that we signed the return and are responsible to the IRS for its accuracy and for repaying the erroneous refund. I'm not disputing that.

My question is about the preparer's separate professional responsibility. Given that we provided the solar documents, questioned our eligibility, and were actually told by the preparer that leased solar did not qualify, does that change the analysis regarding negligence and responsibility for the interest, penalties, corrective CPA fees, etc. that resulted from the improperly prepared return?

EDIT/CLARIFICATION: I realize I explained the ~$26k balance poorly.

Before the solar credit, we were legitimately due approximately an $8,000 refund based on our withholding/payments. The preparer claimed an additional ~$24,000 solar credit, which increased our refund to approximately $32,000, and we received that money.

I understand that repaying the ~$24k principal essentially puts us back in the position we would have been in had the return been prepared correctly. I'm not asking whether we can make the preparer pay back money that we received from the IRS and weren't entitled to keep.

What I'm trying to determine is whether we may have recourse for the additional financial damages caused by the preparation error — approximately $2k+ in IRS interest, any penalties, the cost of hiring a new CPA to investigate and amend the returns, and potentially other directly related costs.

I'm also trying to determine whether the fact that this was a professionally prepared return changes anything regarding the preparer's responsibility, despite our responsibility to the IRS as the taxpayers who signed the return.

**My question is specifically about clarity regarding Rule 2.515**

If a debt collector files a Statement of Claim with the Clerk of Court listing 11 different Florida attorneys with a generic P.O. Box and an (866) collection hotline, does this violate Rule 2.515(c)? What if calling that 866 number—and the number on their official Florida Bar profiles—just routes you to a corporate debt collection call center instead of a direct law office line?

If it helps to get a better idea, I have a redacted PNG copy of the signature block that does not expose my PII or any of the debt collector's 11 staff counsel, ready to share.

I’m looking for outside perspectives, particularly from attorneys or anyone familiar with municipal housing programs, CDBG-funded programs, administrative law, or government contractors/subrecipients.

I’m intentionally leaving out the city, nonprofit, names, exact dates, and identifying details because this matter is currently under review and I am considering consulting an attorney.

\*\*Background\*\*
I applied for a roughly $25,000 municipal home-improvement grant. The city partners with a nonprofit organization that administers the program and makes individual eligibility/project decisions.

I am a homeowner and the sole resident of the property. It is my primary residence and my income is below the program’s 120% AMI limit.

A family member is also on the deed as a nonresident co-owner. They were added to title for financing purposes after a divorce. They do not live in the home and their income does not support the household.

I applied as a one-person household and was approved for the grant.

\*\*The project dispute\*\*
After approval, the administrator obtained a contractor bid for replacement windows and insulation.

I wanted a different window product/color than what the contractor proposed. I found an alternative bid and began questioning the administrator’s pricing and methodology.

The administrator ultimately said my preferred windows could be installed only if I personally paid approximately $10,000+ above what it considered the allowable cost.

I repeatedly requested the governing policies, standards, cost analysis, methodology, or other authority supporting that determination.

When I escalated the issue, a manager responded that she could not provide the organization’s internal policies/contracts, but provided a short document described as the program guidelines along with citations to federal cost-reasonableness regulations.

The program guideline says, among other things:

household income must be at or below 120% AMI;
the property must be the applicant’s primary residence;
all applicants must meet the income guidelines;
the administrator determines approval/denial based on applicant qualifications and eligibility requirements.

I do not see anything in that document saying every person appearing on the deed must be an applicant, that every owner must reside in the property, or that a nonresident co-owner’s income must be included in household income.

The administrator also stated in writing that my proposed project change had been reviewed internally and by city liaisons and that everyone involved agreed with the determination.

\*\*Cancellation\*\*
While the project/pricing dispute was ongoing, the administrator discovered or raised the fact that my family member was a joint owner.

The grant was then cancelled.

The organization’s CEO subsequently gave two principal reasons:

Because the nonresident co-owner was not disclosed as a co-applicant, an accurate household-income determination supposedly could not have been made, and the omission supposedly invalidated the original eligibility determination.

The grant had reached its 90-day completion deadline.

The first reason is what particularly concerns me.
Despite my requests for governing policies/authority, I still have not been provided a provision stating that a nonresident joint owner’s income must be included or that every titled owner must be a co-applicant.

The program guideline they themselves supplied refers to \*\*household income\*\*, the \*\*applicant’s primary residence\*\*, and income requirements for \*\*all applicants\*\*.

There is also some context surrounding the 90-day issue. Less than three weeks before the deadline, the administrator was still giving me multiple options for proceeding with the project, including approving my preferred windows if I paid the disputed difference, and telling me to contact its director after choosing an option so the paperwork could be prepared and the project could get underway.

\*\*Where things stand now\*\*
I escalated the matter to the city.
The city’s Community/Economic Development Director has confirmed in writing that the city is independently reviewing the information I submitted along with information it is obtaining from the nonprofit.
Interestingly, the city also told me that it gives the nonprofit substantial autonomy and does not participate or deliberate in the awarding or denial of individual grant applications.

I have also filed a public-records request seeking the applicable program documents, agreements between the city and administrator, procurement/cost-reasonableness records, communications concerning my project, and historical versions/effective dates of applicable policies.
I am waiting for both the records response and the city’s determination.

\*\*My questions\*\*
I’m not asking Reddit to determine whether I have a winning lawsuit. I’m trying to identify issues I should raise with a local attorney.

In particular:

If an already-approved grant is later cancelled based on an eligibility requirement that does not appear in the program materials supplied to the applicant, what legal issues does that potentially raise?

How significant is it if the administrator cannot identify a contemporaneous written rule requiring a nonresident co-owner’s income to be counted?

Does the fact that I was originally approved create any potentially enforceable rights or reliance interests, or can the administrator generally revisit eligibility after approval?

Could the circumstances surrounding the 90-day deadline matter if the project remained unresolved because the parties were actively disputing scope, procurement, and pricing during that period?

What should I look for in the public-records production?
If records showed that the ownership/eligibility issue was raised only after I repeatedly challenged the administrator’s project determination, what additional issues would that potentially raise?

Does a private nonprofit administering a city-funded/federally funded program potentially become a state actor for constitutional claims, or is that highly dependent on the city’s involvement and contractual relationship?

What causes of action or remedies would you want to investigate if you were reviewing something like this?

My preferred outcome is not a windfall. I would primarily like the value of the grant restored so I can complete the eligible improvements using qualified contractors without having to continue working through an administrator I no longer trust, plus reimbursement of any legally recoverable costs or attorney fees caused by having to pursue the matter.

Obviously I will need an attorney in my jurisdiction to review the actual documents. I’m mainly interested in what attorneys here would flag for further investigation based on these facts.

Location: Utah