Solo tax preparers need a sharper second look before filing

Yes, solo practitioners should establish a deliberate tax return review process. For practitioners subject to Circular 230, a structured review can help support the obligation under 31 C.F.R. § 10.22 to exercise due diligence in preparing and filing tax returns and other documents relating to IRS matters. When one person prepares and signs the return, quality control depends on building a genuinely fresh look into the workflow.

A deliberate process does not require repeatedly reviewing every entry. Giving each review step a clear purpose and adjusting the depth to reflect risk creates a meaningful second look without turning review into re-preparation.

No second reviewer? Build a second look

A solo practitioner can create a structured second pass by changing the focus at different points in the workflow. Although this is not an independent review, it can reduce the risk of overlooking an issue during preparation. Begin with the completed organizer and prior-year return, looking for gaps or changes that require follow-up. Pay particular attention to anything the client flagged. Also note audit history early, as it may affect how closely you review certain positions.

Once the return is complete, compare it with the supporting workpapers. Reconcile tax payments, examine investment summaries, clear diagnostics and confirm that significant items are adequately supported.

Record questions as they arise and close each review comment after the correction has been made. Then step back from the details and look at the return as a whole. A two-year comparison can expose major swings, unexpected balances, unusual refunds or large amounts due. This final look should catch what does not make sense without repeating the detailed review.

Let risk and records guide the review

Not every return requires the same depth of review. A client’s prior audit history is one reason to slow down. Obtain the prior-year return and ask what was examined. Then review the positions and documentation connected to those items closely.

The client organizer can reveal other reasons for a closer look, including major life changes or unusual transactions. New investment activity and noteworthy items the taxpayer identifies may also warrant follow-up.

The engagement letter supports the review process before preparation begins. It should establish the engagement’s scope and fee expectations. It should also clarify each party’s responsibilities. Identify services outside the engagement, such as notice responses or penalty abatement, before review questions create additional work.

Scan-and-populate tools can speed the preparation of tax returns. Firms should verify that a tool covers the necessary forms and produces accurate data before incorporating it into the workflow. Software can assist with preparation, but the preparer remains responsible for evaluating the accuracy and reasonableness of the return.

The completed review workbook belongs in the client file. It should show what was reviewed, which questions were raised, what changed and whether the corrections were completed. This record supports the released return while making the next review easier. When the same issue keeps appearing, the solution may belong earlier in the process, perhaps in the organizer or supporting workpaper.

The solo preparer’s return-release check

Use this condensed check to create a repeatable stopping point before releasing a return.

Preliminary review

• Compare the organizer with the prior-year return.
• Identify missing information and unresolved client questions.
• Note audit history and other facts that call for a deeper review.
• Confirm the engagement scope covers the work being performed.

Substantive review

• Tie significant return items to the supporting workpapers.
• Reconcile federal and state tax payments.
• Review investment activity and other material schedules.
• Clear diagnostics and investigate inconsistencies.
• Close review comments only after corrections are confirmed.

Final review

• Run a two-year comparison.
• Investigate anything in the comparison that lacks a logical explanation.
• Confirm the file supports the positions reported.
• Verify that the return is complete and ready for release.

A solo practice may not have a second set of eyes, but it can still build in a second look. A deliberate review process protects quality without turning every return into an endless loop.

For a deeper look at building an efficient tax return review process, register for NATP’s Implementing Tax Return Review Procedures on-demand webinar.