TAX PLANNING · RESEARCH & INSIGHT| # | Question | A — 0 points | B — 1 point | C — 2 points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Can you name the decision the advice must improve? | Only “pay less tax” | A likely issue, not prioritised | A defined decision with alternatives |
| 2 | Do you know when the decision must be made? | No timing | An assumed year-end target | Date and deadline source confirmed or explicit confirmation owner |
| 3 | Is the incumbent’s scope understood? | No written picture | Letter exists but coverage unclear | Included, excluded and completed work mapped |
| 4 | Are the starting financial records usable? | Material gaps unexplained | Gaps identified with repair plan | Finance lead has reconciled the inputs for review |
| 5 | Are entity, ownership and state facts recorded? | Mostly unknown | Partial list | Current structure, classification and locations confirmed for the review |
| 6 | Are claimed benefits additional to current planning? | No baseline | Some overlap flagged | With/without baseline reconciled by the relevant professionals |
| 7 | Are benefit types separated? | One “savings” total | Deductions/deferrals partly separated | Tax reduction, deferral and non-financial benefits shown separately |
| 8 | Is the complete professional cost known? | Only the headline fee | Several third-party estimates missing | Written fees/exclusions and quote-required items understood |
| 9 | Can the business fund the plan? | No liquidity model | Base case only | Cash timing and downside case reviewed; funding constraints resolved |
| 10 | Who reviews technical applicability? | No qualified reviewer identified | Reviewer proposed but not engaged | Relevant reviewer accepts the work and required inputs |
| 11 | Are affected owners aligned? | Approval unclear or disagreement ignored | Differences documented | Decision rights and partner commitments agreed, or sole-owner status confirmed |
| 12 | Who implements each material step? | No accountable executor | Draft responsibility map | Executors and reviewers accept roles and evidence requirements |
| 13 | Have qualifications and relevant experience been checked? | Marketing claims only | Profiles or references collected | Appropriate standing checks and relevant evidence recorded |
| 14 | Are information-handling terms acceptable? | Unrestricted informal uploads | Some controls described | Approved transfer, access, AI/subcontractor and retention terms |
| 15 | Is there a clear renewal or exit test? | Automatic renewal without review | Review mentioned | Next-period deliverables, notice terms and handover agreed |
Question 5 reflects a real distinction: legal LLC form alone does not determine federal tax treatment. The IRS explains available classifications and elections. IRS — Entities 3: LLC tax classification
Question 10 is a purchasing gate, not a claim that a particular credential is sufficient for every engagement. The IRS credential guide describes professional representation rights; sector and technical competence need separate evidence. IRS — Understanding tax return preparer credentials and qualifications
Question 1 of 15
Can you name the decision the advice must improve?
Evidence to show: A defined decision with alternatives
Read the full questions →Editorial preparation framework, not a validated benchmark, tax approval or savings prediction. A high score does not mean buy a retainer. Answers stay in this browser.