How do I evaluate whether a multistate tax advisory practice is credible and unbiased about state tax planning?

To judge whether a multistate tax advisory practice is credible and unbiased, look for evidence in five areas: expertise, incentives, methodology, transparency, and accountability.

1) Check technical credibility

A credible practice should have:

• Relevant credentials: CPA, tax attorney, former state tax officials, or specialists with multistate SALT experience.
• Specific experience: Not just “tax” broadly, but audit defense, nexus, apportionment, credits/incentives, PTE taxes, SALT controversy, and state-by-state planning.
• Track record in your industry: Rules often differ for SaaS, manufacturing, financial services, healthcare, e-commerce, etc.
• Current knowledge: State tax changes quickly. Ask how they track legislative, regulatory, and case-law developments.

Good sign

They can explain how a rule applies in multiple states and identify uncertainty, not just give a confident answer.

2) Examine incentives and conflicts

Bias often shows up in how they get paid and what they sell.

• Fee structure: Hourly, fixed-fee, or subscription is not automatically better, but ask whether compensation is tied to implementing a specific structure or selling a product.
• Implementation bias: Some firms push aggressive planning because they also sell legal entity restructuring, nexus studies, software, or refund services.
• Disclosure of conflicts: They should tell you if they’re also advising a competitor, lobbying on an issue, or have a contingent fee arrangement.

Red flag

A recommendation sounds like a “one-size-fits-all” tax shelter without discussing risks, audit posture, or alternatives.

3) Evaluate the quality of their analysis

A trustworthy advisor should:

• Start with facts: business footprint, revenue streams, employee locations, sales channels, entity structure, and filing history.
• Cite authority: statutes, regulations, rulings, cases, administrative guidance, and multistate commission materials.
• Distinguish facts from assumptions: They should say what must be verified before implementation.
• Address downside risk: penalties, interest, audit exposure, disclosure options, statute-of-limitations issues, and reputational concerns.
• Offer alternatives: The best answer may be “do nothing,” “file defensively,” or “take a narrower position.”

Good sign

They provide a memo or recommendation with issues, authorities, assumptions, and risk levels.

4) Look for transparency in communication

Credible advisors are clear about:

• What is certain vs. uncertain
• What would change their conclusion
• How aggressive the position is
• What documentation is needed
• Whether the position could be challenged by a state

Ask directly

• “What would a state auditor likely question here?”
• “What is the strongest authority supporting this position?”
• “What is the weakest point?”
• “Would you be comfortable defending this position on audit?”
• “How often do you see this position succeed or fail in practice?”

If they dodge these questions or only market savings, be cautious.

5) Assess independence and objectivity

Unbiased advisors usually:

• Present multiple options with pros/cons.
• Don’t pressure you to adopt the most aggressive position.
• Explain when a planning idea may save tax but increase complexity or risk.
• Recommend outside legal review when the issue is legally sensitive.

Red flag language

• “Guaranteed savings”
• “Audit-proof”
• “Everyone does this”
• “The state will never notice”
• “You don’t need to worry about the downside”

6) Verify with outside sources

Before relying on a planning recommendation:

• Get a second opinion from another SALT professional.
• Check state primary sources if possible.
• Review whether the approach aligns with recent court cases or administrative changes.
• Ask whether the issue has been challenged in other states.

7) Evaluate their posture on conservatism vs. aggressiveness

A credible practice should be able to tell you:

• Whether the position is conservative, supportable, or aggressive
• The likelihood of audit challenge
• The expected cost of defense
• Whether a more conservative option is better for your business goals

The most unbiased advisers are not the ones who always say “yes” to planning. They’re the ones who can explain when planning is worthwhile and when it isn’t.

Practical checklist

Use this quick screen:

• Do they have deep multistate SALT experience?
• Do they cite authorities and explain assumptions?
• Do they disclose conflicts and compensation?
• Do they present alternatives and risks?
• Do they distinguish tax savings from audit exposure?
• Would another qualified professional likely reach a similar conclusion?

If you want, I can also give you:

1. a 10-question interview script for vetting a SALT advisor, or
2. a red-flag checklist for spotting overly aggressive state tax planning.