Tax Review Checklist

Tax review file note checklist for Australian accounting firms

A useful tax-review file note should allow another appropriately qualified person to understand what was reviewed, what material issues arose, what evidence was considered and how those issues were resolved.

There is no single TPB-prescribed template called a "tax review file note".

But registered tax practitioners do have record-keeping, competence, reasonable-care and quality-management obligations that make good documentation an important part of a professional review process.

Published 27 August 2026. Last reviewed 27 August 2026. Technically reviewed by the Taxpartna tax team.

For many firms, the useful test is simple:

If this file were opened again in 12 months, could the reviewer understand what happened without reconstructing the entire tax job?

This checklist provides a practical framework.

It is not a substitute for the Tax Agent Services Act, the Code of Professional Conduct, TPB guidance or a firm's own professional obligations.

What should a tax-review file note contain?

Depending on the engagement, a useful tax-review record may include:

client and entity
income year or reporting period
nature of the engagement
preparer and reviewer
review date
workpapers considered
important source documents considered
significant cross-document checks
material matters identified
review queries raised
responses received
additional evidence obtained
adjustments made
technical matters considered
assumptions
professional judgements
unresolved matters
reviewer conclusion
final sign-off

Not every item is mandatory in every engagement.

A simple individual return may justify a much shorter record than a company group, trust distribution, restructuring or complex CGT matter.

The objective is a record proportionate to the work.

Why does the tax-review file note matter?

A tax return can show what was lodged.

It does not necessarily show how the reviewer became comfortable with it.

Suppose a company return contains a related-party loan balance of $175,000.

The final return does not tell a future reviewer:

whether the balance agreed to the financial statements
whether it agreed to the general ledger
whether a Division 7A workpaper existed
whether relevant supporting information was present
whether the reviewer raised a question
whether anything changed before sign-off

Those matters live in the working file.

A strong review record makes that history easier to understand.

It can also improve:

future-year continuity
staff handovers
partner visibility
review consistency
quality-management processes
follow-up of unresolved matters

The 20-point tax review file note checklist

1. Client and entity

Identify the entity being reviewed.

For a group, clearly identify which entity the note relates to.

2. Income year or period

State the income year or reporting period.

This avoids confusion where several years of workpapers are stored together.

3. Nature of service

Briefly identify what was being reviewed. For example: 2026 company income tax return and supporting tax workpapers.

4. Preparer

Record the person or team responsible for preparation where appropriate.

5. Reviewer

Record who performed the review.

6. Review date

Record when the review occurred.

Where several review rounds occur, retain relevant dates or workflow history.

7. Workpapers reviewed

Identify the important schedules included in the review. Examples might include:

tax reconciliation
fixed assets
provisions
related-party loans
trust distributions
franking account
Division 7A
PSI
CGT
tax losses

8. Source documents considered

Record significant supporting information where relevant. Examples:

financial statements
general ledger reports
loan agreements
dividend statements
trust deeds
distribution resolutions
contracts
valuations
client correspondence

9. Cross-document checks

Record material checks between different parts of the file. For example:

financial statement profit to tax reconciliation
tax reconciliation to taxable income
taxable income to income tax return
related-party balance to return disclosure
dividend amount to franking workpaper

10. Material review issues

Identify matters that required attention. Avoid vague comments where a more specific note can be made.

Instead of "Please check loans." prefer: "Related-party loan is $142,800 in the balance sheet and $138,200 in the Division 7A schedule. Confirm final balance and update affected workpapers."

11. Queries raised

Record significant questions sent to:

preparer
manager
client
external adviser

12. Responses received

Retain enough information to understand how the issue was answered.

13. Additional evidence obtained

If a review query led to new support being obtained, identify it.

14. Adjustments or corrections

Record significant amendments flowing from review. For example: Tax reconciliation updated for $18,400 non-deductible legal expenditure; taxable income and return amended accordingly.

15. Technical matters considered

Identify important tax issues requiring professional consideration.

Do not turn the file note into a textbook. The aim is to identify the issue and record the resulting conclusion sufficiently for the file.

16. Assumptions

Where an outcome depends on an assumption, make that visible.

Hidden assumptions become recurring review problems.

17. Professional judgement

Where the reviewer has made a material judgement, record the conclusion and enough basis to understand it later.

18. Matters escalated

Identify issues referred to:

partner
principal
tax specialist
lawyer
external adviser

19. Unresolved matters

Do not allow open issues to disappear into email or chat. Clearly identify:

what remains outstanding
who owns the action
whether sign-off is blocked

20. Final review conclusion

The reviewer should be able to see whether the file is:

ready for sign-off
ready subject to identified actions
not ready

Example tax-review file note

Consider a fictional Australian company: Harbour Consulting Pty Ltd - 30 June 2026.

A weak review note might say: Reviewed. All OK.

That gives a future reviewer very little information.

A more useful review record might say:

Scope: Reviewed company income tax return, financial statements and tax workpapers for the year ended 30 June 2026.

Material matters reviewed:

Accounting profit agreed between financial statements and tax reconciliation.
Taxable income agreed between final tax reconciliation and income tax return.
Related-party loan balance differed by $4,850 between financial statements and supporting loan workpaper.
Query raised with preparer.
Preparer identified an adjusting journal posted after the original loan workpaper was completed.
Loan schedule updated to final balance and return disclosure checked.
Supporting dividend documentation retained for practitioner review.
Legal expenses of $11,700 reviewed following a client query; treatment referred to the registered tax practitioner for final conclusion.

Open matters: None.

Reviewer conclusion: Review points addressed. File presented to registered tax practitioner for final assessment and sign-off.

The second version does not need to document every tick performed during the job. It captures the matters that make the review understandable.

File note versus workpapers: what is the difference?

The workpapers contain the detailed workings.

The review record explains the significant review process and outcome.

They should complement each other.

For example, a tax reconciliation may contain every adjustment required to derive taxable income. The review note does not need to reproduce the entire schedule. It may simply record that:

accounting profit was traced to the financial statements
material adjustments were reviewed
taxable income recalculated correctly
the final amount agreed to the lodged return
a particular adjustment required further evidence

The review note therefore acts more like a map of the review than a duplicate of the underlying file.

What should be documented when the reviewer identifies a problem?

A useful pattern is: Issue -> Source -> Query -> Evidence -> Resolution -> Conclusion.

Issue

What appears wrong, incomplete or inconsistent?

Source

Where was it identified?

Query

What clarification was requested?

Evidence

What further information was obtained?

Resolution

What changed, if anything?

Conclusion

Why is the reviewer now comfortable - or why is the matter still open?

This structure is particularly useful when the review issue involves several documents.

How should unresolved review items be handled?

An unresolved review note should not be treated as a completed control.

For material issues, identify:

what remains unanswered
whether client information is required
whether technical advice is required
whether the return/workpaper needs to change
who is responsible for the next action
whether the issue prevents sign-off

The distinction matters. "Division 7A - review" does not tell the next person whether the issue was identified, investigated, resolved or forgotten.

Review notes should be specific enough to act on

A large proportion of review friction comes from vague comments. Compare:

Weak: "Recheck tax rec."

Better: "Taxable income on the tax reconciliation is $392,410 but the company return shows $397,410. Confirm which figure is final and update the inconsistent document."

The second note:

identifies the issue
identifies the values
points to the affected documents
gives the preparer a clear action

This improves review efficiency as well as documentation quality.

Tax review file note checklist

Before final sign-off, consider whether the review record answers:

What job was reviewed?
Who performed the review?
What were the significant source documents?
Were important values traced across the file?
What material exceptions were identified?
What queries were raised?
What evidence was obtained?
What changed as a result of review?
Were material technical issues recorded?
Were important assumptions visible?
Were judgement-heavy matters escalated where appropriate?
Are unresolved items clearly identified?
Is there evidence of how significant issues were resolved?
Is the final reviewer conclusion clear?
Is sign-off captured?

How does this connect with TPB record keeping?

The TPB does not prescribe the checklist above.

However, the broader record-keeping framework requires practitioners to keep records that correctly record the tax agent services provided and, where applicable, capture information considered, advice and reasoning.

A well-designed review record can form one part of that broader client file. For a detailed explanation, see the tax agent record-keeping requirements guide.

Where Taxpartna fits

Taxpartna is built around this completed-file review problem.

It reads the submitted workpapers and supporting documents, performs cross-document and defined compliance checks and presents findings to the firm's reviewer.

The reviewer can assess each result and retain the completed QA review as part of the client file. The exported review can include:

checks completed
figures considered
relevant sources
explanations
flagged matters
reviewer sign-off

Taxpartna does not make the practitioner's final professional judgement. It gives the practitioner a clearer and more structured record of the review performed.

See the completed Taxpartna review workflow See Taxpartna features

Related resources

Primary sources

Important information. This checklist is general information only and is intended to support professional review. It does not replace the Tax Agent Services Act, the Code of Professional Conduct, current TPB guidance or the registered tax practitioner's judgement. Taxpartna is a quality assurance assistance platform and does not provide tax advice, prepare returns or give final sign-off.