# Extract Assessed Items From Tax Authority Notice > Extracting assessed items from a state tax authority notice requires separately cataloging each tax type and each component deficiency, identifying the challenge issues applicable to each line item, and flagging procedural vulnerabilities — not just reading the total deficiency from the cover page. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/extract-assessed-items-from-tax-authority-notice` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/extract-assessed-items-from-tax-authority-notice` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/extract-assessed-items-from-tax-authority-notice/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Web & Frontend - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/extract-assessed-items-from-tax-authority-notice --- # Skill: Extract Assessed Items from Tax Authority Notice ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Treat the final assessment notice as the controlling extraction source, then reconcile it against the supporting return, schedules, protests, audit workpapers, and correspondence. - Identify whether the notice assesses one tax type or multiple tax types; if multiple, enumerate them first and analyze each separately before drawing conclusions. - Separate principal tax, penalty, and interest for every assessed item; do not collapse them into a single total. - If the notice contains multiple periods, multiple bases, or multiple adjustment categories, treat each as its own item for extraction and challenge review. - Confirm the petition or reassessment deadline from the notice and any cited statute before doing substantive analysis. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Reading only the aggregate deficiency from the cover page without disaggregating the notice into component tax types and sub-components. - Treating the notice as a final merit determination rather than an opening position in an administrative dispute. - Failing to verify the penalty computation method for each assessed item and whether the cited penalty standard matches the item. - Missing period-by-period limitation exposure, including assessments that may be time-barred even if other periods are not. - Ignoring inconsistencies between the narrative and the schedules, including arithmetic errors and missing identifiers. - Failing to match the final notice against prior submissions and not flagging arguments that were raised but not addressed. - Omitting the governing authority for a challenge theory and stating a conclusion without the supporting rule. - Producing a summary that describes the notice but does not extract the assessed items into a usable working table. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - **Multi-item assessment structure:** State tax notices commonly assess principal, penalty, and interest separately, and each component can have a different legal basis and challenge posture. - **Penalty standards by type:** Negligence, failure-to-pay, understatement, and fraud-type penalties are governed by different statutory standards and proof requirements; the applicable authority must be matched to the notice’s stated penalty basis. - **Exemption and apportionment rules:** Where an assessment turns on a claimed exemption, partial exemption, or apportionment, the controlling statute, rule, or administrative guidance governs whether the disallowance is correct in whole or only in part. - **Interest computation rules:** Interest follows the statute’s prescribed rate and compounding method, and deviations across periods or tax types may create an overstatement. - **Limitation periods:** Assessment authority is bounded by the applicable statutory period, with possible extensions for specified conditions such as substantial understatement or fraud; each period must be tested separately. - **Procedural completeness:** A final notice should be checked for responses to prior arguments, consistency with supporting schedules, and internal arithmetic integrity. - **Authority citation discipline:** Every challenge basis should be tied to a cited statute, regulation, administrative rule, or other controlling authority named in the notice or otherwise generally applicable. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - First enumerate all assessed tax types, periods, and component items visible in the notice. - For each tax type, extract: - the assessed principal amount, - the penalty amount and stated basis, - the interest amount and stated computation approach, - the period covered, - the adjustment category or issue description. - Cross-reference each extracted item to the supporting documents to verify whether the notice matches the underlying records. - For each item, test the following challenge categories where relevant: - exemption or partial exemption, - incorrect penalty standard, - incorrect penalty calculation, - incorrect interest computation, - limitation-period defect, - unaddressed prior argument, - arithmetic or schedule discrepancy, - missing or inconsistent identifying information. - For every challengeable item, state: - the governing authority supporting the challenge, - the factual mismatch or procedural defect, - the likely effect on the assessed amount. - If the notice cites multiple legal bases, map each assessment line to the specific cited authority rather than treating the notice as a single unit. - If the record set includes prior protest or response materials, compare them line-by-line to the final notice and note what changed, what remained, and what was omitted. - Verify the petition, appeal, or hearing deadline and state it prominently. - If the source materials do not support a dispute point, say so expressly rather than inferring one. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Work from top-down structure: notice header, tax type grouping, line-item details, then supporting schedules and correspondence. - Preserve the temporal sequence of the administrative process: preliminary finding, taxpayer response, final assessment, and current deadline. - Track each assessed period independently; a defect in one period does not automatically carry to another unless the same legal basis applies. - When a line item has multiple components, keep the component amounts linked to the same tax type and period so the reader can reconcile the notice back to the source documents. - If the final notice references earlier materials, show the relationship between the earlier position and the final assessed amount. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Use a conventional tax assessment extraction report format rather than a memo disguised as a narrative. - Begin with a short executive summary stating the overall assessment posture, the deadline, and the main dispute themes. - Include an assessment inventory table with columns for: - tax type, - assessment period, - component issue, - principal, - penalty, - interest, - cited basis, - verification status, - challenge basis, - likely impact. - Include a discrepancy / challenge table that lists each issue, the governing authority, the mismatch or defect, and the consequence for the taxpayer. - Include a procedural flags section for limitation, penalty, interest, schedule, and correspondence issues. - Use an ordinal severity field for each issue entry, defined once and applied consistently across the report. - If multiple items exist, provide one row per item; do not aggregate separate issues into a single representative row. - End with a recommended actions section that uses imperative verbs, names the responsible role, and ties each step to the filing deadline or next procedural milestone. - Keep the document suitable for direct insertion into a .docx report.