All figures are estimates based on the records and transcripts we have. Actual outcomes depend on the IRS decision on the pending Offer in Compromise. The OIC was filed by the prior firm in May 2025; we do not yet have the offer amount or current status from the IRS.
The IRS accepts between 21% and 42% of Offers in Compromise nationally, depending on the year. Household income and S-corporation distributions put Paul in a more challenging bracket than the typical applicant. If the OIC is rejected, the fallback would be an installment agreement on the existing liability, paid over time. There is no guarantee of acceptance.
| Year | Tax Owed | Penalties & Interest | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | $2,788 | $943 | $3,730 |
| 2019 | $12,591 | $5,444 | $18,035 |
| 2020 | $0 | $27 | $27 |
| 2021 | $57,482 | $21,884 | $79,366 |
| 2022 | $15,340 | $4,878 | $20,219 |
| 2023 | $39,727 | $1,075 | $40,802 |
| 2024 | $8,044 | $198 | $8,242 |
| Total | $135,972 | $34,450 | $170,422 |
The original engagement covered IRS account review and bookkeeping cleanup. The substantive work is essentially complete.
Allowed us to represent Paul in front of the IRS, pull transcripts, and review his account across all years 2018 through 2024. (Note: Power of Attorney was not extended to cover the recent Appeals correspondence; see Section 5.)
All seven years. This is how we know exactly what’s been filed, what’s been paid, what penalties have been assessed, and what amendments are still in the IRS processing queue.
Confirmed the $170,422 balance across all open modules and broke it down by year, by tax, and by penalties and interest.
Your prior firm filed an Offer in Compromise on May 23, 2025, before our engagement began. We reviewed the IRS records confirming the OIC is on file and pending. The actual offer amount and current processing status are items we are working to confirm directly with the IRS Centralized OIC Unit.
Buys time so the 2025 returns are built on top of clean books rather than rushed through.
Audit-ready financial records for these three years. Transactions reconciled, personal and business activity separated, and P&L and Balance Sheet statements produced.
Worked through each year’s transactions to reconcile and produce audit-ready records. This is where we identified the discrepancies described in the next section.
Final deliverable of your current engagement. Outlines what you need to do going forward to stay compliant, which is particularly important during the OIC five-year follow-up period if the offer is accepted.
Three specific issues surfaced during the cleanup work. These are real findings, but as explained in Section 4, the timing of how to address them is more nuanced than originally thought.
The 2021 QuickBooks Profit & Loss shows roughly $241,000 of services revenue. But a required IRS statement attached to the 2022 corporate return reports that the S-corporation’s 2021 gross receipts were only $124,000. The gap is about $117,000 — roughly half the year’s revenue.
Both of those numbers were produced by the prior firm. One of them is wrong. We cannot determine which one without seeing the actual 2021 corporate return, which the prior firm has not provided. This is almost certainly why 2021 is the largest open IRS balance.
Paul's S-corporation requires that he pay himself a reasonable W-2 wage from the business before taking the rest of the profit as a distribution. He has been paying himself — $65,000 to $73,000 per year from 2022 forward — and those wages show up on his personal return. But they never appeared as an expense on the business Profit & Loss Statement. The bookkeeper and the payroll ledger were running independently and never got combined.
This is a significant reason the books and the filed returns do not line up across several years. It is a fixable issue, but the timing of when to act on it depends on the OIC outcome (see Section 4).
The IRS transcripts show three amended returns have been filed on the account: 2021 twice (February 2024 and again in May 2025) and 2022 once (October 2025). None of the three have actually changed the balances the IRS has on file. The May 21, 2025 amendment shows a transaction code on the same day the OIC was filed indicating it was returned, not just queued. The other two need verification through the IRS Practitioner Priority Line to determine their actual status.
This matters because it shows the prior firm's amendment work has not been effective at reducing the balances. It also illustrates why filing additional amendments while the OIC is pending tends to be unproductive — the IRS systems have difficulty processing simultaneous amendments and OIC review on the same modules.
Parts of the file are handled correctly. The 2018 books reconcile cleanly to the amended K-1 within about $150. The 2022 return reconciles within normal tolerance despite its other issues. The 2024 return is clean — books match the return, basis tracking is in place, charitable contributions are flowing correctly. And the S-corporation structure itself is legitimately saving self-employment tax every year. The parts that are wrong are wrong in specific places, not systemically.
An earlier version of this document recommended pursuing prior-year amendments. After further analysis, that recommendation has been revised. Here is the current thinking.
The discrepancies in Section 3 are real. The 2021 revenue gap and the missing owner wages on the business P&L do suggest that prior-year liability may be overstated. The question is not whether amendments could theoretically reduce that liability. The question is whether amendments are the right move right now.
Three reasons:
1. Refunds get absorbed. Under federal tax law, any refund generated by a successful amendment is automatically applied against outstanding balances on other years before any cash reaches the taxpayer. Paul owes $170,422 across multiple years — any refund would be absorbed.
2. Amendments don't directly reduce the OIC. The IRS does not calculate the OIC based on the size of the liability. They calculate it based on what they think they can collect from the taxpayer over time. Reducing the underlying liability through amendment does not automatically lower the offer amount.
3. Amendments can disrupt OIC processing. Filing new amendments while an OIC is pending creates administrative friction. The May 21, 2025 amendment on the 2021 module shows exactly this pattern in the transcript — it was returned the same day the OIC was filed, presumably because the IRS system cannot process simultaneous claims and OIC review on the same module.
If the OIC is accepted, the amendments largely do not matter — the settlement closes everything out and the "overpaid" amounts are forgiven as part of the compromise. If the OIC is rejected, amendments become valuable as part of fallback strategy because they would reduce the installment agreement balance or support a re-submitted offer at a lower amount.
In other words, the amendment work is sequenced to after the OIC outcome, not before it.
The discrepancies identified in Section 3 are documented and will not be lost. If the OIC is rejected and amendments become valuable, the analysis is already done. The discipline of waiting protects the bigger win.
Between the original April document and this update, several items have surfaced that affect the path forward.
Paul received two sets of letters from the IRS Independent Office of Appeals in Plantation, Florida, signed by Settlement Officer T. Collman. These letters are not new audits. They are tied to the lien and levy actions issued earlier in 2025 and are part of a separate procedural process called a Collection Due Process / Equivalent Hearing.
Both letters reference a phone conference originally scheduled for October 28, 2025 that fell during the federal government shutdown and never happened. The letters give 14 days from May 1 to call SO Collman and reschedule. That deadline is approximately May 15, 2026.
The Power of Attorney filed earlier authorized representation across the original engagement years and matters. It does not extend to direct representation in the Appeals proceeding without an updated authorization. This means Paul has two options before May 15: call SO Collman directly himself, or extend representation through a new POA and engagement.
Tax year 2014 appears on the Appeals letter to Paul. Nothing in the original case file references a 2014 issue. The original document stated that "year first IRS issues began: 2018." For 2014 to be active in 2026, something must have extended the normal 10-year IRS collection clock — likely the pending OIC or a prior administrative action. A transcript pull is needed to confirm what is on this module and whether it should be properly collectible.
The Appeals letters state that Paul's 2023 Form 1040 is unfiled. Internal records show the 2023 return was filed late by the prior preparer (Cardinale Financial Group) in November 2025, which the IRS transcripts confirm. Either the IRS posting has not caught up, or the return needs to be resubmitted. This needs verification.
The 2022 transcript shows two installment-agreement-pending entries dated August 1, 2025 and October 1, 2025. This is unusual when an OIC is also pending on the same module — a taxpayer typically cannot have both a pending OIC and a pending IA at the same time. Possible explanations: the OIC was returned without the case file noting it, the IA was filed as a fallback by someone, or there is an administrative inconsistency. The actual offer amount and current OIC status both need to be confirmed directly with the IRS Centralized OIC Unit.
Given everything in this document, here is the path that protects Paul's best interests with the least risk and the least cost.
Either Paul calls SO Collman directly at 954-423-7959 to reschedule the conference, or representation is formally extended through a new POA so this can be handled on his behalf. Doing nothing risks an adverse Decision Letter being issued on the existing record.
A call to the IRS Centralized OIC Unit (Brookhaven, 844-805-4980) under an active POA can confirm: (1) the actual offer amount submitted by the prior firm, (2) whether the OIC is still pending, returned, or rejected, and (3) the assigned offer examiner. This is foundational information for any decision about the path forward.
Determine what is actually on these modules so they do not become unexpected problems during the OIC review.
As explained in Section 4, the amendment work is sequenced after the OIC outcome, not before it. The findings remain documented and ready to act on if and when the OIC is decided.
The OIC official decision window runs through November 23, 2026. Monthly status checks during that window are appropriate. If the OIC is returned or rejected, the response window is short and requires prompt action.
The original engagement covered the work listed in Section 2 and is essentially complete. The Appeals correspondence and the open questions in Section 5 fall outside the original scope. Any next-step work would require a new engagement and a refreshed Power of Attorney before being undertaken.