How I Use Inversion to Make My Tax Logic Tear Sheets Safer for Everyone

When I build Tax Logic tear sheets, I don’t start by asking, “How do I make this look impressive?”

I start with inversion: “How could this tear sheet go wrong for brokers, owners, buyers, and their advisors?”

If a tear sheet is going to fail, it will usually fail because:It looks like marketing, not an institutional exhibit.It makes the broker look like they’re giving tax advice.It confuses the buyer’s CPA or attorney instead of helping them.It doesn’t fit cleanly into the offering memorandum structure. So I invert each failure into a design rule for the AI:Format: grayscale, OM‑style appendix, neutral headings, no hype.

Role: clearly marked as third‑party, illustrative analysis, not advice or guarantee.

Audience: written so a broker, seller, buyer, and their CPA/attorney/lender can all read it and know exactly what it is—and what it isn’t. Placement: numbered as an exhibit with suggested location in the OM and copy‑paste language for the table of contents and broker emails. Then I use AI in several tight passes, not one big prompt:Ask: “List all the ways a tax tear sheet in an OM could create risk or confusion.”Turn that into constraints and disclaimers.Generate the tear sheet as “Exhibit A – Illustrative Tax Incentive Analysis (Third‑Party Report).”Generate a one‑page “Broker/Owner Integration Note” with talking points and due‑diligence instructions.By running inversion first and then letting AI fill in the structure, my Tax Logic tear sheets end up safer, clearer, and easier to adopt—not just for brokers, but for everyone who actually has to live with the document in a real transaction.

2 comments