Analyze Counterparty Markup Of Proposed Stipulation Of Facts

---
name: analyze-counterparty-markup-of-proposed-stipulation-of-facts
task_id: tax/analyze-counterparty-markup-of-proposed-stipulation-of-facts
description: Practitioners analyzing a counterparty-marked-up stipulation of facts should assess each modification's strategic impact on the client's trial theories, not merely catalog textual changes.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Analyze IRS Counterparty Markup of Proposed Stipulation of Facts

## 1. Subject-matter triage
- Treat the work as a comparative analysis of a proposed stipulation against supporting documents, not a generic proofreading task.
- Identify the governing tax theories first, then map each markup to the theory it helps or harms.
- If only one counterparty markup set is in scope, say so affirmatively; otherwise enumerate the full set of marked items before analyzing them.
- If the request asks for a memo, the memo is the deliverable; if it also asks for a markup file, prepare the markup artifact first and then the memo only after the markup exists and is complete.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- Treating markup review as a line-editing exercise instead of a strategic legal assessment of how each change affects trial posture.
- Missing that a seemingly neutral deletion, qualification, or insertion can shift the narrative on a dispositive tax theory.
- Accepting counterparty-added facts without testing whether they are accurate, incomplete, or strategically overbroad.
- Overlooking the legal effect of dropped qualifiers, substituted dates, changed terms, or revised quantities.
- Failing to separate factual inaccuracy from strategic disadvantage; both matter, but they require different recommendations.
- Producing issue spotting without prioritization, leaving the reader unable to focus on the highest-value negotiation points.
- Describing problems without tying them to the governing tax rule, the controlling record, and the downstream litigation consequence.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- In Tax Court stipulation practice, stipulated facts bind the parties and are meant to narrow dispute; once agreed, they shape briefs, expert work, and findings.
- Review every change against the supporting record, not just against the opposing markup, and test whether the change is faithful to the documents cited.
- Classify each counterparty action by type: deletion, narrowing qualification, substitution, or insertion.
- New insertions may be conceding in tone while still building the counterparty’s theory; evaluate both the apparent concession and the embedded strategic point.
- Date changes, term changes, and quantitative edits can be outcome-determinative where the tax theory turns on thresholds, character, timing, or holding-period consequences.
- Documentation-related edits can affect penalty exposure where they bear on knowledge, process, or reasonable-cause themes.
- Facts about fees, waivers, offsets, allocations, or related economic mechanics can materially affect compensation characterization, economic substance, or partnership-allocation theories.
- Cite the legal rule or authority supporting each substantive proposition you rely on, using the controlling statute, rule, regulation, or recognized tax authority.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds
- Start with a short inventory of all counterparty actions, grouped by category, so the reader sees the scope before the details.
- For each issue, state:
  - the paragraph or section reference,
  - the exact counterparty change,
  - whether the change is factually accurate against the source documents,
  - the legal theory or theories affected,
  - the strategic effect of the change,
  - the recommended response.
- When a paragraph is added, ask whether it is:
  - merely descriptive,
  - strategically supportive of the counterparty’s theory,
  - or both.
- When a paragraph is deleted or narrowed, ask what operative fact or qualifier has been lost and whether that loss matters under the governing tax rule.
- When a date or quantitative term changes, test whether the revised wording affects any timing, threshold, character, or allocation argument.
- When a document or knowledge-related fact changes, assess whether it expands or narrows penalty, good-faith, or reasonable-cause themes.
- When a fee-structure or offset fact appears, assess whether it strengthens a compensation or economic-substance narrative.
- For each issue, include a severity label using a fixed ordinal scale and apply it consistently across the memo.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships
- Read the markup against the proposed stipulation, the cited source documents, and any prior positions taken in the case.
- Identify whether the counterparty is walking back an earlier concession, reframing an admitted fact, or trying to lock in language that will control later briefs and findings.
- Remember that stipulated facts propagate forward into expert analysis, trial briefs, and proposed findings, so an apparently small wording change can have downstream effects.
- Where multiple periods, transactions, or parties are implicated, analyze each separately rather than collapsing them into one representative issue.
- Tie each issue to the immediate record source and to the later litigation consequence so the reader can see both the factual and procedural stakes.

## 6. Output structure conventions
- Produce a prioritized issues memo organized from highest to lowest strategic significance.
- Use an opening summary that states the number of deletions, modifications, and new insertions reviewed.
- Include a legend for severity at the top, with a fixed ordinal scale such as Critical, High, Medium, Low.
- For each issue, use a compact subhead that includes the paragraph reference and severity.
- Each issue should end with three explicit closing moves:
  - a scaled assessment tied to a concrete figure, date, threshold, term, or other record-based measure,
  - a cross-reference to the related clause, schedule, stipulation paragraph, or supporting document,
  - the downstream consequence for the client in the tax dispute.
- Distinguish between factual correction and negotiation posture; recommend accept, reject with counter-language, or reject with deletion.
- When proposing counter-language, give only the operative replacement language needed to fix the problem.
- End with a Recommended Actions block that uses imperative verbs, identifies the responsible role, and gives a timing anchor tied to the filing, negotiation, or stipulation deadline.
- If the deliverable is a markup or marked comparison, make every substantive change legible in plain text as well as by styling, using explicit textual markers for deletions, insertions, and replacements so the change survives export.