Request Supervisor Meeting for IRS Audit

[irs_gnfr]

Hello all:

I'm having issues with a seemingly hard-nosed office IRS auditor. I'd like to be able to meet with supervisor as soon as possible to get client a fair and reasonable treatment. Here is the background and please let me know any seasoned IRS audit strategy advice. Thanks in advance!

BACKGROUND:

I'm 2nd EA on case. The first EA, whom is a totally separate firm than mine, stepped down due to health issues. He'd already gone to a meeting, presented many documents, and failed to arrive at a reasonable agreement with difficult auditor. Therefore, after the 30 day notice of determination was issued ( that basically rejected everything) first EA requested meeting with supervisor. This first EA had set up a date and time to discuss audit results with auditor's supervisor.

After I took over case , the auditor told me meeting with supervisor was canceled. She said that because meeting wasn't arranged by me, that she didn't have to honor it. She did tell me that she would give me more time to get ready and would hold off on not. of deter. Then, she scheduled a new meeting for she and I ( not with supervisor) to meet face to face.

I'm wondering if I got out-maneuvered here ? Should I have stood my ground and demanded that original meeting with supervisor be honored ? Or do I have no choice but deal with original auditor ?

Thanks, David

[Nashville]

Don't Assume Supervisor is Fair

David, we appreciate that you are trying to succinct, but it sounds like there is more to the situation than we can grasp. Whether to continue or not depends on the strength of your case, and from your information we simply don't know. It might be complicated such that you have spared us the lengthy details. I have seen posts so complicated on this forum that none of us answer because we don't wish to become immersed in something time-consuming. To be honest, I've probably put out some of these posts myself.

If you are dealing with an inexperienced auditor, chances are that the decisions being made are being coached by the supervisor anyway. In other words, appealing to someone who is behind these decisions would be a waste of your time.

The best way to evaluate whether this is a good course of action is whether you have a compelling argument that can be backed up with documentation and citations. If so, the supervisor may take a different approach - don't assume the auditor has revealed all the credentials of the case with her supervisor.

Can't answer whether the auditor has to honor the original date set up by the prior EA. Simply don't know from where I sit. She might have the option either way, and is choosing to be hardshelled on this. Remember, one of her objectives on this audit is to get it closed and move on. Your objective should be for your client to be treated fairly.

[MAMalody]

I had a case with a partnership one time and the partnershp was audited. The partnership was prepared by another firm and they made the auditor mad. When my partners came to me with the potential adjustment, I was able to call and get it straightened out. The point here is, do you know the other EA to know that the representation was professional, shot from the hip or a lot of lip. Hate to bring this up, but the auditors are people too, and sometimes, they let themselves respond negatively to a non-professional presentation, especially, if their judgment is called upon and it can go either way. Just a thought.

I do concur, however, that look at the merits, disregarding that fact it has been there already and make you decision based on that info.

[Kram BergGold]

No Brainer to Me

You clearly think your client has been treated unfairly and some if not all of the deductions in play should be allowed. So see the supervisor. There is nothing to lose by doing so.

[DaveO]

Don't be afraid of just going to appeals either. Part of the auditors job performance review is based on how often they are appealed and how often their determination stands. I recently had an appeals case where we reduced the tax liability by $10k.