IRS Auditor Meeting w/ or w/out the client??

[bbrownatl]

Just curious as to how others handle meetings the IRS auditors. Do you prefer to have the client present or not. I have full power of attorney already provided so I have full capacity for the meeting. I prefer to provide only what is specifically requested and keep the discussion on topic and not open up any other years and/or any other areas. It would seem that without the client would work best to achieve this objective though I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Much thanks.

[bbrownatl]

A string already addresses this topic

My bad. I see a string which already addresses this topic.

http://www.thetaxbook.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15871

[jimmcg]

Just curious as to how others handle meetings the IRS auditors. Do you prefer to have the client present or not. I have full power of attorney already provided so I have full capacity for the meeting. I prefer to provide only what is specifically requested and keep the discussion on topic and not open up any other years and/or any other areas. It would seem that without the client would work best to achieve this objective though I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Much thanks.

Without!!!!!

[JohnH]

Depends entirely upon the circumstances. There's no "one size fits all" answer to this question (unless all your clients & their circumstances are exactly the same).

I've done both, and in almost all cases would not have changed the with/without scenario for each situation. Whether to go with or without the client requires a well-thought-out plan ahead of time, along with the proper judgement.

[erchess]

Limited Experience

I have had only one face to face meeting. I did it with the client and it ended with no change but part of what the auditor wanted was my client to personally make an affirmation about the facts of the case. These were facts of which I would have had no direct knowledge and could only have reported what the client had told me. I believe that without the client the best deal I could have hoped for would have been for me to agree to get a signed jurat specifying the facts or bring in the client at another time.

I brought him because I was trained in a big box firm that at least where I was at the time always brought the client. The same firm now has a different person handling the audits and I believe he does things both ways depending in part on the situation with the government and in part on his reading of the taxpayer. I have also always involved the client when I phoned in to the government so that I would only have to do a POA if I was mailing things in. I revised the policy so recently that I've not had the chance to put it into practice.

I now will get a POA and Engagement Letter signed before I do anything else. I've not been bit by failure to take these steps but I'd rather not get bit. Then how hard I try to keep the client away from the examiner will depend on how good a witness I think the client will be. If you go in with the client then nothing can change the fact that the client has to answer or decline to answer any questions directed his or her way. If you go in without the client you can always bring the client or a jurat at a later date. EDITED ENDING It's true that the Agency can only insist on seeing the client if they issue an Administrative Summons. It's also true there's not a lot you can do if they choose to issue one other than produce the client or escalate the time and expense of the case by such measures as going to court. It is additionally true that most cases leave the Agency with some discretion in how hard to hit your client financially and it is human nature to play hardball if the other side does so.

[OtisMozzetti]

During one audit where the client was not present, the auditor wanted to know the address of the business website of the client. I picked up the cell phone at her desk and obtained the address, which satisfied the auditor's issues since she logged her computer immediately into that website.
I think it does have relevance to know what the auditor is likely to prefer (I'm not going to ask them). My estimate is that they would rather hear from a representative who knows how to get to the point about answering their questions and providing the necessary information.

EA in California

[taxea]

Once a client signs a POA I tell them that any attempted contact by the taxing authority should be referred to me and strongly recommend that the client not engage in answering any questions presented. I explain that the client does not have the knowledge needed to know what and what not to say. If he/she has retained me to deal with an issue then his/her money is better spent by letting me handle all contacts. Clients tend to muddy the water when they get in the middle. I prefer to say "I will contact my client and discuss the issue, then get back to you" if I don't already have the answer to the question/s

[kpangelinan]

Without under any circumstance! I do dozens of audits a year (not my tax clients), one of the big parts of my practice and if I don't know the answer, I simply say, "I will confer with my client and get back to you." Works just fine.

[DaveO]

Almost always without the client.

If there is a compelling reason and the presence of the client won’t harm the outcome then maybe. In an audit of a retail store the auditor insisted on meeting with someone from the store. I spoke with the manager who I knew to have a baby a couple of months old so I told her to bring the kid. By the time they gone done oohing and ahhing over the baby it started to cry, meeting over.