01 · Prepare the QC package
Quality control can only test what the review package makes inspectable.
Basis’s public workflow starts with two inputs: the draft return and its supporting documents. For a useful prior-year comparison, include the prior return in the support package as well.
The goal is not to upload every file you can find. It is to create a closed evidence set: the return to test, the workpapers and source documents that support it, and the prior-year baseline that gives changes context.
Tick and tie · Prior-year comparison · Exception report
“Uploaded” is not the same as “reviewable.” A source is reviewable only when the finding can point back to the exact evidence that supports or contradicts the draft.
02 · What Basis returns
The output is a review surface, not a pass/fail badge.
Basis describes three parts of the QC result. Together they narrow the reviewer’s attention to the places where evidence and the draft do not align.
Compare return values against their supporting sources and calculations.
Reviewer question: does the number agree?Surface material or unexpected changes from the previous filed return.
Reviewer question: is the change understood?Collect mismatches, missing support and unresolved differences in one list.
Reviewer question: what must happen next?Start with the exception report, then trace each item back to source. Reopening every document from page one recreates preparation instead of reviewing the prepared work.
03 · Interactive QC run
Run QC, inspect the findings and record a disposition.
This sample partnership return contains three different review situations. Each one needs evidence and a next action—not a guessed answer.
Draft return, workpapers, source package and prior-year return.
Form 1065 line 22 does not agree with the supporting workpaper
Which value should control the draft?
The workpaper total recalculates to $1,312,000 and is linked to the trial-balance source. No support was found for the additional $4,000 in the draft.
Draft Form 1065 line 22 updated to $1,312,000 to agree to WP-TB-04. Linked trial-balance total recalculates; the $4,000 unsupported difference was removed.
Partner 27 ownership increased from 12.5% to 14.0%
Is the change supported or does the draft need correction?
The 2025 K-1 and current-year capital schedule both show 14.0%. The capital schedule identifies an ownership transfer effective 1 January.
Current-year ownership of 14.0% retained. The 2025 K-1 and capital schedule agree; the increase from 12.5% reflects the ownership transfer effective 1 January.
Charitable contribution exceeds the attached receipts
What evidence is still needed before sign-off?
The contribution schedule lists four items. Three receipts are present; the $3,500 River County Food Bank receipt is named in the schedule but missing from the source package.
Open item created for the $3,500 River County Food Bank receipt. Owner: engagement preparer. The return remains not ready to file until support is attached or the draft amount is adjusted.
The return is ready to return to the preparer with a complete, evidence-linked issue list. It is not ready to file until the open support is received.
What to notice: QC does not flatten every finding into “right” or “wrong.” A mismatch is corrected, an explained variance is documented, and missing evidence becomes a named open item.
04 · The reviewer loop
Use the same four moves for every finding.
Open the cited source and confirm it belongs to the client, year and return line being tested.
Decide whether this is a mismatch, an explained change or genuinely missing evidence.
Correct the draft, document the variance, request support or escalate the tax judgment.
Leave a note that names the evidence, conclusion, owner and any remaining open item.
An exception is complete when its disposition is clear. “Reviewed” describes an action. “Corrected to source,” “variance supported,” or “awaiting receipt from client” describes the state of the work.
05 · Practical takeaway
Before the return moves, pass the RELEASE gate.
Is this the correct draft and tax year?
Can each tested value reach its source?
Are meaningful changes understood?
Does every finding have a disposition?
Does each open item have an owner?
Is reviewer judgment preserved?
Is it ready to fix, review or file?