Allen is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. He joined the AICPA in order to receive certain group life insurance member benefits providing him with a lower cost of life insurance. In late March, Allen was asked by a new client to prepare and sign certain individual federal income tax returns involving income and deduction from the prior calendar year consisting of IRS Form 1040 and accompanying forms and schedules. The tax returns were all due on April 15th, but despite the short time period given Allen to prepare and file the returns, Allen agreed to do the work without filing an extension. In the course of preparing the return, Allen noted that the client was subject to a newly enacted statute disallowing a deduction that would adversely affect the client. In essence, Allen discovered that the taxpayer, on advice of another AICPA member, was using the same approach to achieving a deduction as he had used for the prior year's tax return. Unfortunately, the new law appeared to clearly deny the deduction, although the legislative history underpinning the statutory law did not address the taxpayer's particular situation. The client stated that, under the circumstances, it really would not be fair to apply the new law to deny the deduction. Allen agreed that application of the new statutory rule would appear to be unfair. In light of their mutual agreement regarding the unfairness of the new law, Eastman prepared the return and signed it without giving effect to the new law. What should Allen have done as an AICPA member? Discuss.