# Analyze Irs Idr For Completeness And Risk Issues > An IDR analysis memorandum should address each request item, identify the legal and factual issues raised, estimate the associated tax and penalty exposure where possible, and recommend an audit strategy — not merely catalog what the IRS asked for. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/analyze-irs-idr-for-completeness-and-risk-issues` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/analyze-irs-idr-for-completeness-and-risk-issues` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/analyze-irs-idr-for-completeness-and-risk-issues/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Security - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/analyze-irs-idr-for-completeness-and-risk-issues --- # Skill: Analyze IRS Information Document Request for Completeness and Risk Issues ## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable) - Treat the IDR as a sequenced issue-spotting exercise, not a document inventory. - Read the request set as a whole before analyzing any single item; the point is to infer the IRS theory, not just answer isolated asks. - If the source set includes multiple tax years, entities, return positions, or form families, enumerate them first and analyze each separately. - If only one year, one entity, or one issue is actually in scope, state that explicitly and explain why. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Answering only the obvious requests while skipping technical, narrow, or evidentiary items that may drive the audit narrative. - Treating the memo as a checklist of requested documents rather than an analysis of legal exposure and defense posture. - Failing to distinguish substantive income tax adjustments from separate penalty regimes, especially information-reporting penalties. - Omitting the interaction among related requests, where one item may corroborate, undermine, or expand the risk raised by another. - Giving issue descriptions without a consequence, severity, and next-step recommendation. - Using legal conclusions without identifying the governing authority that supports them. - Losing sight of audit strategy: the memo must tell the client what response posture fits each issue. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - **Issue-specific tax law:** For each item, identify the governing Code provision, Treasury regulation, or other controlling authority that determines whether the position is correct. - **Penalties:** Evaluate accuracy-related penalties, information-return penalties, and any other applicable penalty regime separately from the underlying tax adjustment. - **Interest:** Where exposure is estimated, include interest as a distinct component tied to the applicable federal tax rules. - **Basis and depreciation:** When the IDR implicates depreciation, basis, or asset disposition, test whether adjusted basis reflects prior elections, prior deductions, and accumulated depreciation before the current-year computation. - **Loss and reimbursement offsets:** If the facts involve insurance proceeds or similar reimbursements, test whether the claimed deduction or loss must be reduced by the offsetting recovery. - **Temporal applicability:** If the request points to a deduction, credit, or reporting rule whose availability may have changed across years, confirm the rule in force for the relevant period before stating exposure. - **International reporting:** If the IDR suggests a possible failure to file required international information returns, assess that filing failure as a separate exposure stream from any income tax issue. - **Authority standard:** Every substantive proposition should be anchored to a named authority, not just framed as a conclusion. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Work item by item in the same order as the IDR. - For each request item, do four things: identify the legal issue, state the taxpayer’s apparent position, state the correct position if the record supports one, and estimate the resulting exposure. - Scale each issue against a concrete source-document figure, timing point, or threshold where available; do not leave an issue abstract. - Cross-reference related documents, schedules, or requests that interact with the item, especially where one item corroborates, contradicts, or amplifies another. - State the downstream consequence of the issue: tax adjustment, penalty, reporting failure, exam expansion, settlement leverage, or documentation burden. - Rate the issue on a uniform ordinal scale defined once in the memo, and apply that scale consistently. - For every issue, identify a recommended audit posture: concede, contest, narrow, supplement, settle, or seek penalty abatement, as appropriate to the facts. - If exposure can be estimated, present the components separately rather than blending them into one number. - If the source set does not permit a reliable numeric estimate, say so and explain what additional information is needed. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable) - Where the IDR links multiple years, entities, accounts, or reporting regimes, map those relationships before analysis. - Note whether one request depends on another request, or whether a supporting document may resolve several items at once. - If a period-specific rule, filing deadline, or election date matters, place the issue in time and explain why that timing changes the analysis. - If the same facts create both an income tax issue and a separate reporting or penalty issue, keep those tracks distinct while explaining how they interact. - When an item appears minor in isolation but is part of a broader pattern, state that pattern and the audit implication. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce a tax issue memorandum in the same sequence as the IDR items. - Give each entry a short title, then: request summary, legal issue, taxpayer position, correct position, exposure, severity, audit strategy, and supporting authority. - Use a consistent severity legend at the top of the memorandum, such as Critical / High / Medium / Low, and apply it to every item. - For each item, include the issue’s scale, cross-reference to related source materials, and downstream consequence. - Where exposure is available, break it into tax, penalty, interest, and total exposure; where not, explain the limiting factor. - Conclude with a concise summary table ranking the items by severity and response priority. - End with an explicit Recommended Actions block that assigns the next step to a responsible role and ties it to a practical timing anchor derived from the audit process or the source documents.