What would you do?

[ChEAr$]

OP never specified which way the error went, whether any 1040x would result in overpayment or underpayment.

Thus we can't assume a potential refund. And if the other way, what is significant?
$50? $100 in increased tax?

IRS has three years normally (not involving fraud) to audit returns, same period as taxpayers have to request a refund, so that would be the outside number of years.

HOWsomeever...... I doubt that IRS would want to bother with collecting less than $50; too much paperwork. We have our suspicions anyway that there is some threshold that even a cp2000 is not issued.

So then. client should decide.

[gboykin]

Won't get a refund past last 3, so I agree with kpangelinan.

[kpangelinan]

Taxpayer found out a mistake has been made in his tax return for more than 30 years. To cut a long story short, it is a confusion in the percentage ownership of a rental property. The difference is not significant though. Anyway, it is unthinkable to amend 30 years of tax returns. So is it advisable to just amend the last 6 years? Does anyone of you think the taxpayer should go farther back than that?

I would go back 3, 4 at the most especially if the prior year returns aren't going to show a balance due.

[Questionguy101]

How insignificant? Are we talking refund or pay?

For the last 4 years, there will be a small balance due, probably less than $200 before interest and penalty.

For the years farther back than the last 4 years, I think probably there will be a refund if the tax returns are amended. But I am not absolutely sure since I don't even have most of the original returns.

[Burke]

How insignificant? Are we talking refund or pay?

[Questionguy101]

Taxpayer found out a mistake has been made in his tax return for more than 30 years. To cut a long story short, it is a confusion in the percentage ownership of a rental property. The difference is not significant though. Anyway, it is unthinkable to amend 30 years of tax returns. So is it advisable to just amend the last 6 years? Does anyone of you think the taxpayer should go farther back than that?