EA Part 3 representation before the IRS: case preparation

Separate factual evidence from legal authority

A bank statement supports what occurred; it does not establish the tax rule. A statute or regulation supplies law; it does not prove the client met its conditions. Organize the file so each claimed treatment has both a rule and facts satisfying that rule. The outline expressly includes authoritative versus non-authoritative source material.

Turn the client’s request into a defined engagement

A client’s request to "handle the IRS" is too broad to organize a case. Identify the taxpayer, tax periods, notices and desired outcome. Ask whether the dispute concerns the facts, the legal treatment, an assessed balance or a collection action. Then determine the scope of work, the practitioner’s competence and any conflicting interests before accepting responsibility for the response.

Verify the client’s authorization for the actual matter. An EA’s general eligibility to practice does not replace Form 2848 or other applicable authority. If a business and an owner both face related issues, treat them as potentially separate clients and taxpayers. Intake should produce a clear issue list and deadline list, not just a folder of uploaded documents. These lists remain useful even when a specialist later handles one part of the case.

Build the argument from facts and legal authority

For each issue, state the legal question, the rule to be researched, the relevant facts and the evidence supporting those facts. A publication can help explain an IRS process, but research must consider the applicable legal authorities and their relevance to the period and issue. A persuasive-looking summary is not a substitute for checking whether its rule actually applies to the taxpayer’s circumstances.

Distinguish facts that are established from facts that remain assumptions. If the client’s spreadsheet and bank records differ, explain the reconciliation rather than using whichever source favors the result. Written advice must use reasonable assumptions and consider relevant facts. The aim is a position another reader can follow from authority through evidence to conclusion, including any limitation that materially changes the result.

Manage the procedural calendar alongside the argument

A strong substantive position can still be damaged by a missed procedural opportunity. Record each notice date, response deadline, submission address or method, and proof of delivery. Separate internal drafting dates from legal deadlines so that a delayed client document does not silently consume the remaining response time. If an extension is available for the particular step, verify it rather than assuming one exists.

Keep the client informed about what has been submitted, what remains uncertain and what decision is needed. The IRS’s request, the practitioner’s recommendation and the client’s authorization are different records. Avoid promising that a well-supported response guarantees a particular result. The examination and collection lessons cover their respective review routes; this domain’s task is to prepare the file and preserve the process that makes those routes usable.

Review the file as if someone else must take over

Before sending a response, check that every issue has an identified position, relevant support and a clear requested action. Confirm that attachments are referenced accurately and that the response covers the same taxpayer and periods as the authorization. An unexplained stack of records leaves the reader to construct the argument and can conceal missing evidence.

A handoff review is a useful editorial exercise: could another authorized, competent practitioner identify the current stage, next deadline and unresolved question from this file? If not, add the missing explanation. This tests case preparation without pretending to predict the outcome. It also distinguishes this broad representation lesson from form mechanics: a perfectly completed power of attorney permits action, but it does not prepare the factual or legal response.