A finished ACC-683 Topic 5 substantiation DQ post example, arguing that advice survives examination when it names the records a position requires, shown on a disallowed vehicle deduction and a sustained trip. Searches like "acc 683 topic 5 assignment example", "acc683 topic 5 sample" and "acc-683 topic 5 example" land here.
What a finished ACC-683 Topic 5 substantiation dq post looks like
Its first sentence carries the claim: advice holds up in an examination when it tells the client, at the time it is given, what record the position will need. The case follows, every amount a composite. Last year the agent was told that her SUV's business use justified deducting $14,400 of its $18,000 cost, and that a seven-day conference trip qualified. The examiner disallowed the vehicle entirely, because section 274(d) requires adequate records or corroborating evidence for listed property and she kept no log. The trip largely survived: an agenda and a registration receipt showed four business days, so airfare stayed deductible and lodging was allowed for those days only. The post adds that the Cohan rule, under which courts sometimes estimate expenses, does not reach items section 274(d) covers.
How an ACC-683 Topic 5 example is structured
The post runs to four paragraphs plus a reply, sized for a discussion thread. The first gives the claim together with the standard it proposes: advice is complete only when it names the evidence the position depends on. The second tells the agent's two deductions side by side, what she was told, what she kept and what the examiner concluded. The third explains why the trip held and the vehicle fell, citing section 274(d) and the difference between a record made at the time and a reconstruction assembled once the examination began. The fourth turns to the adviser, connecting the claim to the diligence Circular 230 section 10.22 expects and to section 10.34, which does not let a practitioner ignore information that looks incomplete. The reply answers a classmate who expected a reasonable estimate to be accepted, showing where that holds and where it does not.
A claim about advice, not deductions
The post argues that the legal answer was right both times, so the difference between a surviving and a failed position lies in the records the advice required.
Two deductions, one examination
The $14,400 vehicle claim and the conference trip are laid side by side, with what was advised, what was kept and what the examiner decided for each.
Why the vehicle fell entirely
Section 274(d) demands adequate records or corroborating evidence for listed property, and a mileage estimate prepared after the examination began, with nothing to corroborate it, satisfies neither.
Why the trip largely held
A conference agenda and registration receipt corroborated four business days, so airfare survived and lodging was allowed for those days while the family days were not.
The adviser's share of the outcome
Advice that recommends a deduction without naming its record is incomplete, the post argues, and it ties that point to the diligence Circular 230 expects of a practitioner.
An estimate rule with limits
The reply grants that courts sometimes estimate deductible expenses under the Cohan rule, then shows that section 274(d) removes that possibility for vehicles, travel and gifts.
Where marks go in ACC-683 Topic 5
Posts answering with a general principle, that good advice is well researched, score least, because the question asks what survives and research alone did not save the vehicle deduction. A post that blames the client for losing the log misses the adviser's part, since the log was never mentioned when the deduction was recommended. Citing the Cohan rule as a fallback for the SUV is a substantive error on these facts, because section 274(d) displaces it. Some posts disallow the whole trip because family came along, when the business days were documented and deductible. Replies that agree with the thesis and add nothing, or that restate the case, earn little. Posts are also marked down for turning to penalties before settling whether the deduction survives at all.
Get an ACC-683 Topic 5 example written to your instructions
Send the ACC-683 Topic 5 discussion prompt as your classroom shows it, the participation rubric and any case facts attached. We write a custom example to them, with a claim stated first, a composite case worked through the governing rule, the adviser's duties addressed and a reply that tests a classmate, ready in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free; coursework only.
ACC-683 Topic 5 questions, answered
What counts as an adequate record for a vehicle?
An account book, log or similar record made at or near the time of use, showing mileage, dates, destinations and business purpose. Section 274(d) also accepts sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer's own statement, which is why a reconstruction tied to calendars and client files sometimes survives where a bare estimate does not. The post uses the agent's missing log to show the difference between the two.
Why does the Cohan rule not help?
The rule, from a 1930 appeals court decision involving the entertainer George M. Cohan, lets a court estimate a deductible expense when the taxpayer shows one was incurred but cannot prove the amount. Congress enacted section 274(d) to stop that approach for travel, gifts and listed property, so an estimate cannot replace substantiation there. Outside section 274(d), estimation remains possible, which the reply notes.
Is the post saying the adviser was negligent?
Not in so many words. Its claim is narrower: advice recommending a deduction without naming the record it needs is incomplete, and the agent's examination shows the cost. Circular 230 lets a practitioner generally rely on a client's information in good faith, though not ignore facts that look incomplete. The post treats that as a standard for future advice on a composite case, not as a finding against anyone.