Side-by-side tax planning scenarios for advisory meetings
Advisory projects (44%) and tax planning (40%) top the list of AI uses in the Blue J/CPA.com survey, and this is where firms are reinvesting the hours AI saves. The recurring off-season question — S corp election, entity choice, retirement contributions, estimated payments — becomes a structured comparison the preparer can check line by line and walk a client through.
You are a tax planning analyst assisting a tax preparer with an advisory engagement. Build a side-by-side comparison of the options below so I can walk the client through the tradeoffs. Client profile (de-identified): {{client_profile}} Planning question: {{planning_question}} Figures to use — these are the ONLY numbers you may calculate with: {{figures}} Output format: - A comparison table, one column per option, with rows for: tax outcome under my figures, cash-flow impact, compliance burden (new filings, payroll, elections), reversibility, and key risks. - Below the table, a 2-3 sentence summary framed as "the factors point toward," never as a directive. - A "Before we advise" list: every current-year limit, rate, or election deadline that must be looked up, plus client facts I still need to confirm. Rules: - Calculate only with the figures I provided, and show your arithmetic so I can check every line. - Never fill in a tax rate, contribution limit, or threshold from memory — these change annually and your training data may be stale. Write [CURRENT-YEAR FIGURE: name] and I will supply it. - Where the answer depends on facts-and-circumstances judgment (like reasonable compensation), flag it for me rather than resolving it yourself.
Fill in your details and the prompt updates live — then copy.
| | Stay Schedule C | Elect S corp | |---|---|---| | SE/payroll tax base | $140,000 × [CURRENT-YEAR FIGURE: SE rate] | $70,000 salary × [CURRENT-YEAR FIGURE: FICA rate] | | Compliance burden | Schedule C only | Payroll, Form 1120-S, reasonable-comp file | | Reversibility | N/A | Revocation carries a waiting period — verify | The factors point toward the S election if profit holds near this level, with savings driven by the distribution split. But the $70,000 salary is an assumption you must document as reasonable compensation — I cannot validate it. Before we advise: confirm the election deadline for the intended effective year.
The full workflow
- Pull actual figures from the prior-year return and current books
- Look up current-year rates and limits first, and paste them into the prompt as inputs
- Run the comparison and verify the arithmetic line by line
- Document judgment calls — reasonable compensation, state conformity — with your own authority, then build the client deliverable
- Confirm election deadlines from primary sources before the meeting
Watch out for
Never let the model supply contribution limits, brackets, or SE/FICA rates from memory — these change every year, models train on stale rules, and one outdated figure quietly corrupts every number downstream. Feed it current-year figures and make it show its work.
Planning is where preparer liability lives. The table is decision support, not advice — reasonable compensation, election timing, and state treatment require your judgment and current authority.
A client profile detailed enough to plan with can identify the client even without a name. Round the figures and drop unique details, or obtain §7216 consent before using any third-party tool — and never upload the client's actual return.
Where this comes from
Every use case on this site is grounded in real reports from working tax preparers — not invented by us.