The Internal Revenue Service is ramping up its scrutiny of large partnerships, leveraging increased funding under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
Last year, the IRS announced a restructured leadership to support its Strategic Operating Plan and use the increased funding from the IRA. The new structure aligns with the agency’s initiative to beef up enforcement for large corporations, complex partnerships, and high-net-worth individuals. To facilitate this, the IRS established a new team within its Large Business and International Division, focusing on audits and compliance for partnerships and similar entities, with more agents trained to handle complex partnership returns, a key enforcement priority for the agency.
“There is a special initiative with the large partnership compliance program, and for that the IRS announced they have selected 76 entities, and they’re doing large partnership audits,” said Rochelle Hodes, principal in the Washington national tax office at Crowe LLP, a Top 25 Firm based in Chicago. “But that’s a special category. What we’ve seen in partnership audits is generally an increase.”
She recently shared her insights with Accounting Today on the main takeaways for taxpayers involved in partnerships to ensure compliance and successfully navigate partnership audits amid increased scrutiny. She also recently discussed this topic in an Insight article for Crowe that can be found here.
The IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
“I expect that we’ll start to see the results of the IRS having better trained agents and better behind-the-scenes issue selection,” she added. “I expect we’re going to start seeing that in the examinations as well.”
The IRS has been training more people to do these types of complex examinations and audits thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act funding. “They were working with a very skinny staff before the IRA money allowed them to hire, so they were basically operating, in some respects, with one hand behind their back,” said Hodes. “Because partnerships are sophisticated and because they have the various operating divisions in LB&I, they were taking their auditors who were more experienced, who basically were corporate. They knew issues that corporations had, and so you’re taking these people who had been doing exams in a certain way and focusing on certain issues, and they moved them over, and they didn’t provide very much training.”
The IRS had also been auditing partnerships in its Small Business/Self-Employed Division. “Then you have the small business auditors who were focusing on a lot of their bread and butter issues, which if the partnership you selected was an operating partnership that operated a business that made sense,” said Hodes. “Issues like employment, tax and certain accounting method things, those would be normal for them, but I think that they just completely missed the mark because they were not trained either on partnership issues. Now we have a change.”
A new Pass-through Entities Practice Area group in LBI led by Cliff Scherwinski is combining the SB/SE and the LBI resources for audition and training those personnel.
Rochelle Hodes
“I think the result is going to be potentially a better trained examination workforce for partnerships, more agents focused on partnerships, and more consistency in what the taxpayer experiences when they have an examiner doing the partnership exam, and I think that’s a good thing,” said Hodes.
The new approach overlaps with the implementation of a centralized partnership audit regime at the IRS. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 allowed the IRS to set up a centralized partnership audit regime, although the process took much longer than expected.
“The other thing that we saw in the beginning of this whole thing with BBA coming in, the BBA procedures for conducting an examination are different in a number of ways, and my experience was most of the agents had no idea what the BBA procedures were, and I think they were given very few tools to help them with that,” said Hodes. “There also was not a lot of process, so there wasn’t a lot of consistency. I think we’ve started to see much more consistency. We’ve started to see teams training. Being an auditor, being an examiner, is a skill set in itself, notwithstanding the subject matter that you do it in or the division that you’re in. We’re seeing some of this knowledge transfer. We’re seeing some consistency, and I think the IRS will proceed further with that. Truthfully, that’s a good thing for the taxpayer as well. At least if you’ve got to be audited, you want to be audited by people who know what they’re talking about, who know what the procedures are supposed to be, because for a lot of taxpayers, this will be their first exam for many partnerships, and it will be their first exams under the BBA procedures. So it’d be very nice if they could rely on the IRS knowing what they’re doing. And I think we’re going to see a smoother process. While it’s not wonderful to be audited, at least if the process is smoother, and you have knowledgeable folks who are performing the exam, it can take that little bit of pain out of the examination.”
She is seeing more consistency under the BBA regime.
“One of the things that is different is the idea of an examination is consistent throughout,” said Hodes. “You get selected, the IRS goes and asks you questions with information document requests, IDRs. And then the agent might go to specialists or not, but will identify issues that they’re concerned about. You talk about those issues, then the IRS agent will let you know what they think their issues are going to be. The way things worked in a corporate exam in LB&I, it was a notice of proposed adjustment. But before that, there was an informal process where the agent would give a draft and sort of write up their issues to the taxpayer, in order to get the taxpayer’s response and work through to see if there really are any issues, to get an idea of this potential agreement and to try to really fine-tune before they got to the notice of proposed adjustment, BBA has statutorily got this notice of proposed partnership adjustment, so that’s a similar process. But then LB&I put it into their processes. They formalized that preliminary or draft as a step in the BBA process, and that step starts the clock to request an appeal on the substantive issues, formalizing that sort of draft or preliminary NOPPA, but the names are different on these things, and the notice of proposed partnership adjustment also comes with a draft, as does the preliminary draft of the imputed underpayment computation as well. There are the substantive issues. And then how, under the uniqueness of BBA, they compute whatever tax is supposed to be due, which is the imputed underpayment. So those are other differences. And then, once the notice of proposed partnership adjustment is issued, that then starts a 270-day clock for the taxpayer to request modification.”
She noted that if a taxpayer requests a modification and it’s denied, the taxpayer will have another opportunity to go to the IRS Appeals office about the denial of the modification. “It’s not a second fight for issues that you already went into Appeals for, but it’s that two opportunities to go to Appeals that are unique,” said Hodes.
There are some similarities as well as differences. “After the modification process is over, then you get whatever now your adjustments and imputed underpayment is post modification,” said Hodes. “You’ve got this final partnership adjustment, which looks a little bit in the TEFRA [Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982] space like the final FPA. You’ve got the final notice, and that has an equivalent in the corporate space or the individual space with the notice of deficiency. And so those are your ticket to go to court. Within 90 days, you have to ask to go to court. That’s a similarity. There’s this final determination by the IRS, and once they give it to you, you get 90 days to say if you go to court. Another difference in BBA is you’ve got 45 days to make an election of whether or not you want to push out the adjustments, if you want to make that pushout election, and that 45 days is a strict date, and it runs concurrent with that 90 days. So in the first 45 days after you get an FPA, you’ve got to decide, am I going to push out, or is it possible I might want to push out. Then, if it is possible, you’ve got to make the election. And then within that 90-day period, which 45 days is running as well. So you’ve got these two time frames running at the same time. You then decide whether or not you want to go to court.”
She sees that as another major difference. “After you get your final partnership adjustment, you’ve got two decisions: Do I push out? Do I go to court? There’s a bunch of other stuff, but those are the big changes in process.”
However, the November election is likely to have an impact on partnership audits. “Depending who wins in Congress and the White House and whether and how the negotiations on TCJA expiring provisions go, we could see some form of partnership legislation,” said Hodes.
She pointed to several possible wrinkles. “Carried interest has been a hot issue for a long time,” said Hodes. “Senator [Ron] Wyden had a whole partnership reform bill at one point that could come back to life, and you have the administration’s Green Book that has a bunch of partnership updates, so there’s a lot of potential for continued change. And then you have the IRS SECA [Self-Employment Contributions Act] issue with LPs. That’s a super hot issue right now. A lot going on. You’ve got the basis-shifting proposed regs that they put out. That’s sort of bubbling up over there. You have IRS talking about being concerned with disguised sales and wanting to do new guidance on that. On the guidance front too, there’s potential for more change in the partnership space. And then the TCJA expiring provisions are mostly individual provisions, but 199(A) is supposed to expire at the end of 2025. Huge in the pass-through space. [Section] 461(l), which limits business losses that can be claimed by noncorporate taxpayers is a huge passthrough issue. 461(l) is supposed to expire, I think, at the end of ’28. Will that be extended as part of raising revenue in order to get to a deal in TCJA? Who knows? There are all kinds of passthrough-specific things that are also swirling around. If I’m in a partnership or passthrough or I am someone who is heavily involved in passthrough entities or has significant investments in passthrough entities, I’m watching all of this stuff, and there’s so much change.”
Her firm, Crowe, has a campaign called “Embrace Volatility.” “Certainly for passthrough entities, that is the way they should think about stuff,” said Hodes.
She also sees implications in the international space. “A lot of the international rules are going to be dealing with pass-through non-U.S. entities,” said Hodes. “How are global MNCs or MNEs [multinational companies or enterprises] going to be dealing with components of their structure that are pass-through entities? The rules are, in some cases, very uncertain, and in other cases very unfavorable. There’s a lot affecting pass-through entities in the international space. One of the biggest tax issues right now is the taxation of passthrough entities. I think that’s just huge right now, because everything’s so up in the air, and the IRS is really starting to focus.”
The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board is proposing to tailor some of its standards to align with recent additions to the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants’ International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants when it comes to using the work of an external expert.
The IAASB is asking for comments via a digital response template that can be found on the IAASB website by July 24, 2025.
In December 2023, the IESBA approved an exposure draft for proposed revisions to the IESBA’s Code of Ethics related to using the work of an external expert. The proposals included three new sections to the Code of Ethics, including provisions for professional accountants in public practice; professional accountants in business and sustainability assurance practitioners. The IESBA approved the provisions on using the work of an external expert at its December 2024 meeting, establishing an ethical framework to guide accountants and sustainability assurance practitioners in evaluating whether an external expert has the necessary competence, capabilities and objectivity to use their work, as well as provisions on applying the Ethics Code’s conceptual framework when using the work of an outside expert.
President Donald Trump’s tariffs would effectively cause a tax increase for low-income families that is more than three times higher than what wealthier Americans would pay, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
The report from the progressive think tank outlined the outcomes for Americans of all backgrounds if the tariffs currently in effect remain in place next year. Those making $28,600 or less would have to spend 6.2% more of their income due to higher prices, while the richest Americans with income of at least $914,900 are expected to spend 1.7% more. Middle-income families making between $55,100 and $94,100 would pay 5% more of their earnings.
Trump has imposed the steepest U.S. duties in more than a century, including a 145% tariff on many products from China, a 25% rate on most imports from Canada and Mexico, duties on some sectors such as steel and aluminum and a baseline 10% tariff on the rest of the country’s trading partners. He suspended higher, customized tariffs on most countries for 90 days.
Economists have warned that costs from tariff increases would ultimately be passed on to U.S. consumers. And while prices will rise for everyone, lower-income families are expected to lose a larger portion of their budgets because they tend to spend more of their earnings on goods, including food and other necessities, compared to wealthier individuals.
Food prices could rise by 2.6% in the short run due to tariffs, according to an estimate from the Yale Budget Lab. Among all goods impacted, consumers are expected to face the steepest price hikes for clothing at 64%, the report showed.
The Yale Budget Lab projected that the tariffs would result in a loss of $4,700 a year on average for American households.
Artificial intelligence is just getting started in the accounting world, but it is already helping firms like technology specialist Schellman do more things with fewer people, allowing the firm to scale back hiring and reduce headcount in certain areas through natural attrition.
Schellman CEO Avani Desai said there have definitely been some shifts in headcount at the Top 100 Firm, though she stressed it was nothing dramatic, as it mostly reflects natural attrition combined with being more selective with hiring. She said the firm has already made an internal decision to not reduce headcount in force, as that just indicates they didn’t hire properly the first time.
“It hasn’t been about reducing roles but evolving how we do work, so there wasn’t one specific date where we ‘started’ the reduction. It’s been more case by case. We’ve held back on refilling certain roles when we saw opportunities to streamline, especially with the use of new technologies like AI,” she said.
One area where the firm has found such opportunities has been in the testing of certain cybersecurity controls, particularly within the SOC framework. The firm examined all the controls it tests on the service side and asked which ones require human judgment or deep expertise. The answer was a lot of them. But for the ones that don’t, AI algorithms have been able to significantly lighten the load.
“[If] we don’t refill a role, it’s because the need actually has changed, or the process has improved so significantly [that] the workload is lighter or shared across the smarter system. So that’s what’s happening,” said Desai.
Outside of client services like SOC control testing and reporting, the firm has found efficiencies in administrative functions as well as certain internal operational processes. On the latter point, Desai noted that Schellman’s engineers, including the chief information officer, have been using AI to help develop code, which means they’re not relying as much on outside expertise on the internal service delivery side of things. There are still people in the development process, but their roles are changing: They’re writing less code, and doing more reviewing of code before it gets pushed into production, saving time and creating efficiencies.
“The best way for me to say this is, to us, this has been intentional. We paused hiring in a few areas where we saw overlaps, where technology was really working,” said Desai.
However, even in an age awash with AI, Schellman acknowledges there are certain jobs that need a human, at least for now. For example, the firm does assessments for the FedRAMP program, which is needed for cloud service providers to contract with certain government agencies. These assessments, even in the most stable of times, can be long and complex engagements, to say nothing of the less predictable nature of the current government. As such, it does not make as much sense to reduce human staff in this area.
“The way it is right now for us to do FedRAMP engagements, it’s a very manual process. There’s a lot of back and forth between us and a third party, the government, and we don’t see a lot of overall application or technology help… We’re in the federal space and you can imagine, [with] what’s going on right now, there’s a big changing market condition for clients and their pricing pressure,” said Desai.
As Schellman reduces staff levels in some places, it is increasing them in others. Desai said the firm is actively hiring in certain areas. In particular, it’s adding staff in technical cybersecurity (e.g., penetration testers), the aforementioned FedRAMP engagements, AI assessment (in line with recently becoming an ISO 42001 certification body) and in some client-facing roles like marketing and sales.
“So, to me, this isn’t about doing more with less … It’s about doing more of the right things with the right people,” said Desai.
While these moves have resulted in savings, she said that was never really the point, so whatever the firm has saved from staffing efficiencies it has reinvested in its tech stack to build its service line further. When asked for an example, she said the firm would like to focus more on penetration testing by building a SaaS tool for it. While Schellman has a proof of concept developed, she noted it would take a lot of money and time to deploy a full solution — both of which the firm now has more of because of its efficiency moves.
“What is the ‘why’ behind these decisions? The ‘why’ for us isn’t what I think you traditionally see, which is ‘We need to get profitability high. We need to have less people do more things.’ That’s not what it is like,” said Desai. “I want to be able to focus on quality. And the only way I think I can focus on quality is if my people are not focusing on things that don’t matter … I feel like I’m in a much better place because the smart people that I’ve hired are working on the riskiest and most complicated things.”