As accountants, do you regularly research primary tax law sources when preparing returns?

How do you decide when a situation is complex enough to warrant checking primary sources? I feel like I'm either over-researching simple issues or not researching enough on the complex ones. Also, do you have a preferred resource for finding relevant court cases? I've been using Tax Analyst but wondering if there's something better.

I generally check primary sources when I'm handling an issue I haven't encountered before or when substantial money is at stake. If my client could face significant tax consequences based on a particular interpretation, that's when I dig deeper to be certain. As for court cases, I primarily use RIA Checkpoint because it allows for targeted searches and provides good summaries alongside the cases. It's expensive but worth it if you're regularly researching complex issues. Tax Analyst is solid too, but I find Checkpoint's interface more intuitive for finding relevant precedents quickly.

Does it actually cite the specific code sections it's referencing? My biggest frustration with other research tools is they give conclusions without showing their work. Also, how does it handle situations where there's legitimate ambiguity in the law or conflicting interpretations?

I'm a bit skeptical tbh. I've tried other AI tools for tax research and they often give overly confident answers that aren't quite right when you dig deeper. How accurate have you found it compared to traditional research methods? Have you ever caught it making mistakes on complex issues?

Yes, it provides all the specific code sections, regulations and relevant case law citations right alongside its analysis. You can easily click through to read the full primary sources if you want to verify anything. That was actually what convinced me to trust it - being able to see exactly where each conclusion came from. Regarding ambiguity, it actually does a good job of highlighting when there are multiple interpretations or gray areas. In those cases, it presents the different viewpoints and explains which position has stronger support while noting the risks. I've caught a few minor misinterpretations, but they've been quickly corrected when reported, and honestly fewer than I'd find in some secondary sources I've used.

Wait, how does this actually work? Do they have some special connection to the IRS or are they just auto-dialing and then connecting you? I'm confused about how this would be any different than me calling myself.

This sounds like BS honestly. If everyone used this service wouldn't it just create the same bottleneck? And how do they guarantee they'll get through? The IRS phone system is deliberately designed to limit calls. I don't see how any third party service could magically bypass that.

They don't have any special connection to the IRS - they use a sophisticated system that waits on hold for you. They call the IRS, navigate the phone tree, wait through the hold times, and then call you when a human agent actually answers. It's different than calling yourself because you don't have to waste hours listening to hold music. It doesn't create a bottleneck because they're not increasing call volume - they're just waiting in the same queue everyone else is in. They don't guarantee they'll get through, but in my experience they've been successful about 80% of the time, which is way better than my success rate calling directly. The system works because most people give up after 30+ minutes on hold, but their system has infinite patience.

I switched from CCH to Thomson Reuters Checkpoint a couple years ago and found it much more intuitive. The search functionality is way better and it integrates primary sources with explanations more seamlessly. It's not cheap though. For a more budget-friendly option, consider Bloomberg Tax. It's pretty comprehensive and their interface is more modern.

Thanks for the recommendation! I'll check out Checkpoint. Does it have any kind of trial period? Also, do you find it's worth having a separate research tool when we already have ProSystem for preparation? Trying to justify the expense to the partners.

Yes, Thomson Reuters usually offers a 2-week trial if you reach out to their sales team. I found that to be enough time to see if it works for your research style. As for justifying the expense, I track time spent on research for each client and found I was saving about 3-4 hours per week using a dedicated research tool versus trying to cobble together information from free sources and tax prep software. When I showed the partners that math (my billable rate × hours saved per year), the decision was easy. Plus, having proper research documentation significantly reduces your professional liability risk.

I felt that way my first 3-4 years in practice. What helped me was taking specific continuing education courses on research methods and primary source analysis rather than just technical tax updates. Also, don't be afraid to tell clients "I need to research that" instead of guessing. They actually respect you more for being thorough.