Second-opinion study review
A second opinion should identify a specific concern and evaluate the supporting evidence before recommending changes. Practical cost segregation buyer guidance from Stratum.
The decision this guide addresses
A second opinion should identify a specific concern and evaluate the supporting evidence before recommending changes.
Provide the complete original report, implemented schedules, correspondence, and new facts. Ask the reviewer to define its scope and whether it will issue a written conclusion.
Make this review concrete
Define whether the second engagement reviews evidence, costing, classification, or the implemented return. Supply the entire first report so favorable excerpts do not conceal relevant limitations. Ask for an explanation of disagreements and the records supporting any revision. A proposed higher percentage without an asset-level reconciliation does not establish that the first study was wrong.
A practical review sequence
Separate differences in assumptions from technical disagreements. Preserve prior filing records and coordinate any corrective action with the return preparer.
Begin with the actual property and engagement being considered. Keep a written distinction between confirmed facts, estimates, services being purchased, and decisions reserved for the return preparer. If a seller or provider presents only a headline benefit, ask for the underlying evidence and assumptions before making a comparison.
Working review sheet
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Question to resolve | A second opinion should identify a specific concern and evaluate the supporting evidence before recommending changes. |
| Evidence or explanation to request | Provide the complete original report, implemented schedules, correspondence, and new facts. Ask the reviewer to define its scope and whether it will issue a written conclusion. |
| Review action | Separate differences in assumptions from technical disagreements. Preserve prior filing records and coordinate any corrective action with the return preparer. |
| Responsible party | Name the owner, study provider, technical reviewer, or return preparer who can answer this particular question. |
| Acceptance record | Document the answer, its supporting reference, unresolved items, and the version of the report or engagement to which it applies. |
A hypothetical problem to recognize
A new provider recommends a higher reclassification percentage without examining the first report's basis reconciliation.
Treat the missing explanation as an open item. Ask for a written response, connect it to the affected records, and determine whether it changes the proposed scope or feasibility. This scenario is an editorial illustration, not a testimonial or evidence that a particular provider has performed deficient work.
Questions for the next conversation
What evidence supports the proposed conclusion for this property? Which facts or records could change the answer? Who is responsible for resolving them, and is that work included in the quoted engagement? These questions are more useful when they identify a specific document, asset row, or service than when they request a general assurance of quality.
Ask what the final deliverable will contain and how the preparer will receive it. Where the question affects costs or implementation, request a revised written scope rather than relying on a sales-call recollection. Where it affects tax treatment, the preparer should apply the current rules to the taxpayer rather than extrapolate from another property.
Complete the decision record
Retain the relevant proposal, response, source documents, final report version, and implementation notes in the property file. Record what remains unresolved and whether it must be addressed before engagement, before report delivery, or before filing. A documented decision is easier to review later than an unexplained schedule or an isolated benefit estimate.
Stratum focuses on component evidence and reporting. Broader tax planning, method changes, state calculations, and return preparation need defined responsibilities and an agreed scope. Confirm those roles so the property work produces a useful handoff rather than an assumption that one purchased service includes every related task.
References and scope
- IRS Cost Segregation Audit Technique Guide, Publication 5653
- IRS Publication 551: acquisition, transferred, and adjusted basis
- IRS Publication 946: depreciation, ownership, methods, and timing
These references explain the underlying tax framework. The checklists and scenarios on this page are editorial tools for gathering evidence, not quotations or asset-specific rulings from the IRS. The audit guide is examination guidance, not an official pronouncement of law or certification of a provider. A return preparer must apply current authority to the particular property, taxpayer, and filing year.