Tax Preparation

AI Drafts, Professionals Sign: Keeping the Reviewer in Control

Bobby Huang7 min read
Jump to a section

Key takeaways

  • The Firm sorts task output into three categories: what the page says, what it means for the file, and whether the return is right.
  • The Firm writes the line task by task as its own table: what the tool may draft, what a person decides, and who signs off.
  • The tool may raise a question about what an item means for the file; under the Firm's rule, it never writes the decision.
  • When a draft carries a decision word, the Preparer strikes it and the person who owns that decision writes their own note.
  • Moving a task toward the tool takes a passed known-answer test and a record; moving it back takes only a recorded reason.
  • Sign-off stays with the Firm's licensed professional, and the sign-off column never moves to the tool.

An owner setting rules for AI in a tax practice can stop asking whether staff use an AI tool. The working question is where the line sits on each task: what the tool may draft, what a person decides, and who signs off. The Firm draws that line itself and writes it down.

This piece names no tool: the line is the Firm's, whichever tool it uses. Sign-off belongs to the Firm's licensed professional, the Reviewer on the file.

Three kinds of output on every task

The Firm uses three categories to sort output from tasks it assigns to a tool. The Firm sorts them before it sets any rule for the task.

What the page says. Names, labels and figures as printed on the source document. The Firm can let the tool draft this kind. A person confirms each item against the page it came from.

What it means for the file. Whether an item belongs in the file, which document the file uses, how a figure is treated, and what to ask the client. A person decides this kind. The Firm chooses whether the tool may raise it as a question. Under the Firm's rule, the tool never writes it as a decision.

Whether the return is right. The Firm's licensed professional concludes and signs off. No tool output stands in for that conclusion.

When two people disagree about an AI draft, ask first which kind of output they're looking at. A rule written for the first kind says nothing about the second, and a rule written for the second says nothing about the third.

Draw the line task by task

Write the line as a small table, one row per recurring task. Keep it where the Firm keeps its procedures, and name its owner by role, such as a partner. Four columns do the work: the task, what the tool may draft, what a person decides, and who signs off.

Task

The tool may draft

A person decides

Signs off

Document inventory

The file list as printed

What is in scope

Not a sign-off item

Missing-items request

Absences against the Firm's list

What to request and what goes to the client

Not a sign-off item; the Preparer approves the request

Prior-period comparison

Differences, with both pages

What each difference means

The Reviewer, with the workpaper

K-1 rows

Printed items and their pages

Which K-1 the file uses and how each item is used

The Reviewer, with the workpaper

Entry list

Rows with citations

Every judgment entry

The Firm's licensed professional

These rows are one Firm's sample choices; each Firm writes its own. Each cell names a decision, never the steps behind it; the linked pieces cover those steps. A task with no row stays by hand until the Firm adds one.

Read across a row and the line is plain: the draft column is the tool's, and every column after it belongs to a named person. When a Preparer can't tell whether an output sits in one column or the next, the Firm's rule can be to treat it as the column further right and send the question to the table's owner, so a close call never rests on whoever holds the draft.

When a draft crosses the line

A draft crosses the line when it carries a decision. Look for words like "qualifies", "should be treated as", "the correct figure is" or "no need to request". Each one moves the output out of what the page says and into what it means for the file, or into whether the return is right. They're examples of words a Preparer strikes, not tax rules.

The Firm's rule, written as its own choice: the Preparer strikes the decision words and keeps what the page says, with its page reference. The person who owns that decision under the table writes their own note. Nobody accepts the tool's decision by leaving it in the draft, even when they agree with it. Agreement goes in the owner's own words, so the file shows who decided.

The instruction side has its own fix: keep conclusions out of the output shape before the tool runs. If the same task keeps crossing the line, the Preparer sends it back to the table's owner, not on to the next client file. The owner decides whether the row, the instruction or the task itself changes.

Moving a task across the line

The line moves. A partner may want the tool to draft more of a task, or less. The Firm names who may move a row: the table's owner, or a partner the Firm names. Nobody else changes the table between files.

Each move gets its own entry in a move record kept beside the table: the task, which column changed, the date, who approved it, and why. The table shows where each line sits today; the record shows why. The Firm can have the owner read a row's past entries before moving it again, so a reversal starts from the reason given last time.

Moving work toward the tool takes a passed test first. Run the task on a known-answer folder before the row changes. Moving work back toward a person needs only a recorded reason, so the Firm can pull a task back the day it sees a problem.

Sign-off rests on the Reviewer's own readback of the file, which the readback piece lays out.

A Doe example

Morgan Doe, a partner at Doe & Partners, owns the Firm's line table. Morgan moved the prior-period comparison draft to the tool after the task passed its known-answer test. The move record shows the date, the column changed and Morgan as approver.

Alex Doe, a Preparer, runs the prior-period task for the client Doe Holdings. One draft row says a payer from the prior period is gone, and it adds "no need to request." Those words are a decision about what to ask the client, so they belong to the second kind of output.

Alex strikes them. The row keeps its two page references, one from each period, and Alex adds a note that the question is open. The missing-items row in the table names who decides what to request, so the open question goes to that person, not to the client.

Pat Doe, the Reviewer, reads back the file and signs off. The struck words, Alex's note and Morgan's move are all on the record, so Pat can see who drafted, who decided and who moved the line.

Where TracePrep fits

TracePrep's one shipped workflow today is the Reasonable Compensation Study for an S-corporation shareholder-employee. It's a different job from this line, and it keeps the same kinds of records:

In this line

In the Study

What the page says is confirmed against the page it came from

Every figure traces to its source, occupation, geography, and period, at field level

The person who owns that decision under the table writes their own note

Each Preparer adjustment carries a documented rationale

Each move across the line records who approved it and when

The audit log records who prepared, who changed what, and who approved

The table shows where each line sits today; the record shows why

Finalized evidence stays with the Firm, with an immutable evidence manifest

The Firm's licensed professional concludes and signs off

A qualified Reviewer controls the conclusion and signs off

We've built a TracePrep plugin that runs these steps in your Firm's workflow.

Want the TracePrep plugin in your Firm? We'll tell you when access opens.

Join the waitlist

This is general information, not tax or legal advice. Your licensed professional and your Firm's Reviewer are responsible for every return and every conclusion. Keep client data inside the systems your Firm has approved. As general guidance only, not advice: if you use an AI tool with client data, firms generally look for a business or commercial plan whose terms cover how that data is handled; read the vendor's current terms before you do.

Frequently asked questions

Can an AI tool suggest a treatment for a person to accept?
The Firm can allow a question row: the tool notes that an item may need a decision and cites the page. The person who owns that decision writes the answer in their own words. Under this Firm's rule, accepting the draft wording does not replace the decision owner's own note.
Does every task need its own row in the table?
Under this approach, yes. A task without a row stays by hand until the table's owner adds one. That keeps a new use of the tool from starting on a client file before anyone has decided where its line sits.
Who can move a task across the line?
The table's owner, or a partner the Firm names. Each move goes in the move record with the task, the column changed, the date, who approved it and why. Staff who think a row is wrong send it to the owner rather than changing it themselves.
What about wording that goes to a client?
The tool may draft the wording of a request or a note. A person decides what is sent and to whom. The table row for that task names the person, so nobody sends a draft on the tool's say-so.
Is the line the same for every client file?
The Firm keeps one table. If a client file seems to need a different line, the Preparer raises it with the table's owner, who decides and records the change. Staff don't move the line in the middle of a file.

Share this article

Bobby Huang · founder of TracePrep Inc.

Bobby Huang is the founder of TracePrep Inc. TracePrep is a tax-prep platform for CPA, EA, and accounting firms, and it also produces the Reasonable Compensation Study.