Every financial advisor reviews tax returns. But how deep does a typical review actually go? To find out, we built a fictional — but realistic — client household and ran it through two processes: a thorough manual review by an experienced advisor, and an analysis using Worthy's AI tax intelligence platform. The results were striking.
Note: The Lawson household is entirely fictional. All figures, tax forms, and scenarios are illustrative. But the types of opportunities described here are based on real patterns Worthy surfaces for clients every day.
Meet the Lawsons
Daniel Lawson, age 63 — Semi-retired former VP of Engineering at a publicly traded tech company. Still consults part-time through a single-member LLC (Schedule C income ~$185,000/yr, qualifying for the QBI deduction). Holds $2.1M in a traditional IRA rolled over from his 401(k), $420,000 in a Roth IRA, and ~$1.4M in a taxable brokerage account. Consulting income drops to zero in two years when his contract ends.
Sarah Lawson, age 58 — COO at a mid-size private company. W-2 income of $310,000 plus RSUs vesting at ~$95,000/yr. Participates in a 401(k) with employer match but has not maximized catch-up contributions. Plans to retire at 62.
Joint details: Married filing jointly. Own a primary residence ($1.8M, $640K mortgage at 3.2%) and a vacation rental property in Colorado generating ~$28,000/yr gross rental income (Schedule E). Two adult children, one still a dependent (college senior, age 22). Contribute $8,000/yr to a donor-advised fund. Total household AGI for TY2025: approximately $740,000. Combined federal + California effective tax rate: ~34%.
The typical manual review
An experienced advisor spending 45–60 minutes on the Lawsons' return would likely catch the following — all of which are genuinely valuable:
- Roth conversion opportunity window. Daniel's consulting income drops to zero in two years. The advisor notes this is a future Roth conversion window but does not model specific amounts or year-by-year bracket impacts.
- RSU tax withholding shortfall. Sarah's RSU vests are being withheld at 22% supplemental, but her marginal rate is 35%+. The advisor flags a potential underpayment penalty.
- Rental property depreciation. The advisor confirms MACRS depreciation is being taken correctly on the Colorado property.
- 529 contribution reminder. The advisor notes the Lawsons could make a 529 contribution for their youngest, though the child is graduating soon.
- Charitable giving conversation. The advisor sees the $8,000 cash donation to their donor-advised fund and suggests increasing contributions.
These are good catches. But they represent what can be found in an hour with a return, a calculator, and experience. Here is what happened when we ran the same household through Worthy.
What Worthy found
Worthy's AI analyzed the Lawsons' full tax picture — every form, schedule, and data point — in under 90 seconds. In addition to flagging everything the manual review caught, it surfaced the following:
1 Five-year Roth conversion ladder with year-by-year bracket optimization
$38,000–$52,000 in projected tax savings
The manual review noted a future Roth conversion window. Worthy went further: it built a five-year conversion ladder using the Lawsons' actual income trajectory. With Daniel's consulting income at $185,000 this year, dropping to $90,000 next year, and reaching zero in Year 3 — while Sarah's W-2 and RSU income continue — the optimal conversion amounts vary significantly by year. Worthy calculated that converting $95,000 in Year 1, $155,000 in Year 2, and $240,000–$280,000 in Years 3–5 would fill the 24% bracket each year without triggering IRMAA Tier 2 Medicare surcharges. Waiting to convert in a single large tranche (as many advisors default to) would push the Lawsons into the 35% bracket and trigger $4,800/yr in IRMAA surcharges. The year-by-year model also accounts for investment growth on the unconverted balance — at 7% annual growth, the IRA would grow by $147,000 during the conversion window, all of which would eventually be taxed as ordinary income if not converted.
2 OBBBA provision analysis across seven forms
$11,000–$16,000 in savings
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act introduced several provisions affecting the Lawsons' 2025 and 2026 returns that the manual review did not address. Worthy cross-referenced the new law against every relevant form and flagged three items: First, Daniel qualifies for the new senior standard deduction add-on ($4,000 for filers 63+), which interacts with their itemized vs. standard deduction decision. Second, the SALT deduction cap increased to $40,000 under OBBBA but phases out above $500,000 AGI — the Lawsons are in the phaseout range, and Worthy modeled the exact deduction they can claim ($31,200) rather than assuming the full $40,000. Third, the new auto loan interest deduction ($10,000 cap) applies to Sarah's vehicle lease, which was not captured on the return. The manual review didn't surface any of these because the provisions are new and their interactions with the Lawsons' income level are not obvious.
3 QBI deduction optimization with phaseout management
$9,000–$14,000 in savings
Daniel's consulting LLC generates $185,000 in Schedule C income that qualifies for the Section 199A QBI deduction. But at $740,000 AGI, the Lawsons are well above the phaseout threshold for specified service trades. The manual review did not address QBI at all. Worthy analyzed whether Daniel's consulting work falls under the "specified service" definition (it does — engineering consulting is explicitly listed) and modeled the partial deduction available in the phaseout range under OBBBA's revised thresholds. It also identified that timing $32,000 in deductible expenses into the current tax year (rather than next year, when Daniel's income drops) would increase the QBI deduction by keeping taxable income within a more favorable phaseout band.
4 Charitable giving strategy with appreciated securities
$8,000–$12,000 in savings
The manual review suggested increasing DAF contributions. Worthy made a specific recommendation: instead of donating cash, contribute $45,000 in appreciated stock from Daniel's brokerage account (shares with a $6,000 cost basis purchased in 2012). This eliminates $39,000 in embedded capital gains that would otherwise be taxed at 23.8% (federal LTCG + NIIT), saving ~$9,300 in capital gains tax. The Lawsons still get the full $45,000 charitable deduction. Combined with their $18,400 in state and local taxes and $21,000 in mortgage interest, this pushes their itemized deductions well above the standard deduction — a threshold the $8,000 cash donation alone would not have crossed. Worthy modeled the itemized vs. standard comparison both ways.
5 Multi-year scenario revealing bracket cliff in Year 4
$6,000–$9,000 in savings
Worthy generated a five-year income projection using the Lawsons' actual income sources, growth assumptions, and planned retirement dates. The scenario revealed a problem in Year 4: Sarah's final RSU tranche ($190,000) vests in the same year she plans to begin Social Security at 62, and Daniel's traditional IRA RMDs are two years away. Without intervention, Year 4 AGI spikes to $520,000 — pushing them back into the 35% bracket and triggering IRMAA surcharges they had just escaped. Worthy recommended delaying Sarah's Social Security by one year and accelerating the final RSU sale into Year 3 (when Daniel's zero consulting income creates bracket room). The manual review, focused on the current year's return, had no visibility into this future collision.
6 RSU withholding correction with estimated payment schedule
$3,000–$5,000 in penalty avoidance
The manual review flagged that Sarah's RSU withholding at 22% was insufficient for her 35%+ marginal rate. Worthy quantified the gap: at $95,000 in RSU income, the withholding shortfall is $12,350 for federal alone, plus $8,550 for California. It generated a quarterly estimated payment schedule for the remaining three quarters and calculated that the Lawsons had already incurred a $1,400 underpayment penalty for Q1. Worthy recommended using the annualized income installment method on Form 2210 to reduce the penalty to $380, since the RSU vests are concentrated in Q2 and Q4.
Side-by-side comparison
| Area | Manual Review | Worthy |
|---|---|---|
| Roth conversion | Noted future opportunity | Built 5-year ladder with bracket + IRMAA optimization: $38K–$52K |
| New tax law (OBBBA) | Not addressed | Flagged senior deduction, SALT phaseout, auto interest: $11K–$16K |
| QBI deduction | Not addressed | Modeled phaseout + expense timing optimization: $9K–$14K |
| Charitable giving | Suggested increasing donations | Recommended appreciated stock + modeled itemization: $8K–$12K |
| Multi-year planning | Not addressed | Projected bracket cliff in Year 4, recommended timing shifts: $6K–$9K |
| RSU withholding | Flagged shortfall | Quantified gap, built payment schedule, reduced penalty via Form 2210: $3K–$5K |
| Time spent | 45–60 minutes | Under 90 seconds |
| Total identified savings | $12K–$18K | $87K–$126K |
The bottom line
Manual tax review is valuable. Good advisors will always catch the most obvious issues. But "obvious" is a function of time and attention. A 45-minute review can note that a Roth conversion window exists — it cannot model five years of conversions against IRMAA thresholds, RSU vesting schedules, and investment growth simultaneously.
Worthy does not replace advisor judgment. It extends it. By building year-by-year conversion ladders, cross-referencing new legislation like OBBBA across every relevant form, and projecting multi-year scenarios that reveal bracket cliffs and income collisions, Worthy helps advisors deliver the kind of analysis that high-net-worth clients expect but rarely receive.
If the Lawsons were your clients, would your current process have caught all six?