Circular 230 §10.22 due-diligence checklist

Have you confirmed the AI tool's technological competency for the specific task you're using it for?

§10.22(a) requires the practitioner to exercise due diligence in the preparation of returns. Treasury's December 2024 proposal extends this to the technological tools used in preparation.

31 C.F.R. §10.22(a); REG-116610-20 (Dec 26, 2024)

Did you independently verify the AI's output (forms, calculations, source citations) before signing the return?

Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023) and subsequent guidance treat unverified AI-generated content as the practitioner's own work product. You sign — you are responsible.

Mata v. Avianca, 22-cv-1461 (PKC)

Do you have a §7216 consent in place covering disclosure of return data to this specific AI vendor?

Any disclosure of return information to a third party processor — including AI vendors — requires written consent meeting the §7216 form, content, and timing rules.

Treas. Reg. §301.7216

Has the AI vendor produced a current SOC 2 Type II report?

Not a Circular 230 requirement, but a defensible due-diligence floor when transmitting client data. Verify report date is within 12 months.

AICPA SOC 2 framework

Do you have logging or retention of the AI's outputs sufficient to reconstruct what was relied on for each return?

Best-practice; not explicitly required. Becomes load-bearing if a return is later examined and the AI's contribution is at issue.

Best practice; cf. §10.34 documentation

Has the client been informed that AI tools may be used in preparing their return?

Not federally mandated but addressed under several state ethics rules (e.g., CA Rule 1.6 commentary). Aligns with the consent posture in §7216.

State bar AI ethics opinions; engagement-letter best practice