Built for CPA firms and tax practices

Proposal software built for accountants, not generic sales teams running a quota.

When January hits and your firm needs to send 400 engagement letters in six weeks, the generic PandaDoc template that worked for the agency across the hall will not carry the pricing math, the Circular 230 disclosures, or the AICPA Statements on Standards for Tax Services citations your partners want on the page.

Start free trial See pricing
What this audience is actually dealing with

The pains that bring buyers here.

Engagement letter season for a tax practice is a six-week sprint. A 14-partner CPA firm in Minneapolis that we talked to last January sends roughly 1,100 engagement letters between the second week of January and the end of February. The pricing lines on those letters are not boilerplate: a typical return runs 1040 base plus K-1 add-ons per entity plus state returns (sometimes six states for a traveling consultant) plus extension handling plus advisory services billed hourly against a realization target. Generic proposal tools (PandaDoc, Proposify, Qwilr, Better Proposals) were built for marketing agencies selling 30,000-dollar retainers, and the template libraries show it. The accountant-specific alternative is Ignition (formerly Practice Ignition), which handles the engagement-letter workflow well but prices on a per-proposal-sent basis that punishes firms with 400 clients and bills payment-processing fees on top. Strkr ships a proposal builder tied directly to the client CRM record, with pricing packages that model the 1040 + K-1 + state math, Circular 230 disclosures already in the template, and the e-signature plus billing event logged on the client file for the partner review.

January through April is a different season

The engagement-letter sprint nobody else models for.

Your firm sends more proposals in six weeks than most agencies send in a year. The volume is one problem; the second is that each letter needs the correct scope block, the correct Circular 230 and Section 7216 consent language, and the correct pricing lines for returns the client did not have last year. Generic proposal tools make you rebuild the scope paragraph in every single letter. Strkr's accounting proposal flow starts from the prior-year engagement, flags scope drift, and only asks the partner to review the deltas.

AICPA engagement letter standards

SSTS and SSARS citations that have to be right.

AICPA Statements on Standards for Tax Services (SSTS Nos. 1 through 7, revised effective January 2024) and Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services (SSARS) carry specific language requirements for engagement letters. The firm's risk partner cares that the citation is current and the scope language ties to the applicable standard. Strkr's template library tracks the SSTS and SSARS versions and surfaces a review flag when a template references a superseded standard. You stop auditing templates manually at year end.

Circular 230 disclosures

Treasury Department rules that live in every letter.

Circular 230 governs practice before the IRS and dictates specific disclosure language for written tax advice. Your firm's engagement letters and advisory deliverables need the Section 10.37 covered-opinion language where applicable, the Section 10.33 best-practices framing, and the conflicts-of-interest language under Section 10.29. Generic proposal tools treat these as a legal boilerplate paste. Strkr tags disclosure blocks by purpose so the partner selects by situation (tax return, advisory opinion, representation) and the correct block renders.

Pricing-package complexity

1040 + K-1 + state + extension does not fit a line-item builder.

A high-net-worth individual return runs 1040 at the base rate, plus K-1s for each pass-through entity (sometimes 8 to 15 K-1s for a family office client), plus state returns at tiered rates per state, plus extension-prep fee if filed. Partnership returns stack 1065 base plus K-1 preparation times partner count plus state filings. Generic proposal line-item builders force the preparer to type each line. Strkr's pricing-package engine computes the total from entity structure and jurisdictions attached to the client record.

The Ignition cost ladder

Per-proposal pricing that scales the wrong way.

Ignition prices on a per-proposal-sent basis with payment-processing fees on top. For a firm sending 1,100 letters in Q1, the Ignition line can run 20,000 to 40,000 dollars annually before the processing fees. Strkr's flat per-seat pricing with proposals and e-signature included on every paid tier means the firm's cost scales with staff count, which is the metric that actually correlates with the proposal volume you can produce.

Hourly realization and advisory billing

Advisory proposals that have to show the realization math.

Advisory engagements (CAS, outsourced CFO, R&D tax credit studies, Section 199A planning) bill hourly or on a fixed-fee basis with a declared realization target. The firm's managing partner cares about the proposed rate against the firm's realization goal (often 85 to 95 percent on advisory work). Strkr's proposal builder pulls staff rates from the practice management side, calculates realization against the proposed fee, and surfaces a yellow flag if the proposed rate drops below the partner-set floor.

What accountant proposal software should actually ship

The accounting primitives, done right.

Proposal software evaluation for a CPA firm is not about templates or e-signature flow; it is about whether the tool models the 1040 + K-1 pricing math, the Circular 230 disclosure requirements, the AICPA standards references, and the Form 2848 and 8821 attachment handling that your partners need on every letter. The cards below are what ships on every paid Strkr tier.

Prior-year engagement rollforward

The letter starts from last year, not a blank page.

Each client's engagement letter rolls forward from the prior year with the scope language, entity structure, state filings, and pricing from the completed engagement. The preparer reviews deltas (new K-1, dropped state, added advisory scope) rather than rebuilding the letter. For a 400-client firm, this cuts proposal creation time from 20 to 30 minutes per letter to 4 to 7 minutes. The partner review focuses on what changed, not on checking that boilerplate is unchanged.

Pricing-package engine

1040 + K-1 + state + extension math built in.

The pricing engine reads entity structure from the client record (individual with 3 S-corp K-1s and a California LLC K-1, filing in CA, OR, and NY) and computes the engagement fee from your firm's rate card. State filings add at the per-state rate. Extensions compute separately. Advisory add-ons stack. The engagement letter shows the itemized math or a bundled flat fee depending on the firm's proposal convention. Rate cards update once and apply firm-wide.

AICPA-safe template library

SSTS and SSARS citations tracked by version.

The template library tags each engagement letter template with the SSTS and SSARS versions it references. When AICPA revises a standard (the SSTS revisions effective January 2024, for example), Strkr surfaces a review flag on templates that cite the superseded version. The risk partner clears the review once per update instead of auditing all 40 templates every year. The firm's compliance posture stays current without a dedicated template-review project.

Circular 230 disclosure blocks

Section 10.37 and Section 10.33 language per situation.

Disclosure blocks tag by purpose: tax return preparation (Section 10.33 best-practices and Section 10.21 due-diligence framing), written tax advice (Section 10.37 covered-opinion language where applicable), representation (Form 2848 reference and Section 10.29 conflicts-of-interest language). The preparer selects the engagement type and the correct disclosures render automatically. The firm's managing partner stops hand-checking Circular 230 language in every letter.

Form 2848 and 8821 referencing

Power of attorney and TIA attachments on the engagement.

Representation engagements and tax information authorization engagements attach Form 2848 (Power of Attorney) or Form 8821 (Tax Information Authorization) with the client engagement letter. Strkr tracks the Form 2848 or 8821 as an attached document on the client record with the covered tax years, CAF number, and expiration date. The engagement letter references the form and the client signs both in one e-sign flow. The IRS copy routes through the firm's CAF handling process.

Section 7216 consent handling

Tax-return-information consent captured correctly.

Section 7216 of the Internal Revenue Code governs disclosure of taxpayer information by preparers and requires specific consent language with required separate signatures for permitted uses (referrals to third-party advisors, use in advisory services, use for marketing). Strkr's consent flow captures the required separate signatures with the IRS-specified language and retains the executed consent with the engagement. The firm's audit trail covers the Section 7216 requirement.

E-signature with partner review queue

Partner review before the letter goes to the client.

Letters generated by a preparer or staff accountant route through a partner review queue before send. The partner sees the proposed engagement, the pricing against realization, and any scope deltas versus the prior year. Approval or revision happens in one place. The e-signature flow includes initialing of specific blocks (Section 7216 consents) as required. The signed letter and the audit trail land on the client record for the firm's workpaper retention.

Rev Proc 2023-18 safe harbor language

The 2023 Revenue Procedure updates in the template.

Revenue Procedure 2023-18 revised the Section 530 safe harbor and related worker-classification engagement language. The template library carries the current safe-harbor language and tags prior templates for review. For firms doing worker-classification advisory work, the current citations save time and reduce the risk of a letter referencing superseded guidance. The template update cycle is a Strkr-side responsibility, which is a specific advantage over hand-maintained engagement letter libraries.

CRM-connected proposal history

Every letter on the client record.

Each proposal and engagement letter sent, signed, declined, or expired logs on the client record with the pricing, scope, signatures, and timestamps. The partner reviewing the client ahead of the next engagement sees the five-year history on one tab. Lost-deal analysis (why did this prospect pick a competitor) runs as a report rather than an anecdote. The firm's business development conversations run from data rather than from memory of what was proposed when.

The compliance surface accountants actually need

IRS, AICPA, state board, and PCAOB considerations.

Proposal and engagement letter compliance is a wider surface than most firms realize until a peer review or an engagement complaint lands. Circular 230, SSTS, SSARS, PCAOB auditing standards for issuer work, state board of accountancy rules, and the IRS Section 7216 and 7525 handling all live in your engagement correspondence. Strkr handles each of these at the template layer so the risk partner is not auditing by hand every January.

SSTS compliance tracking

Statements on Standards for Tax Services 1 through 7.

The AICPA SSTS revisions effective January 2024 updated SSTS Nos. 1 through 7 covering tax return positions, answers to questions, procedural aspects, use of estimates, departure from prior position, knowledge of errors, and form and content of advice. Strkr tracks the version each template references and surfaces reviews when a standard updates. The firm's SSTS compliance evidence runs as a report rather than a hand-reconstructed binder.

SSARS 25 and preparation engagements

Compilation, review, and preparation scope language.

SSARS 25 and the Clarity SSARSs restructured compilation, review, and preparation engagement letter requirements. Strkr's templates tag by SSARS engagement type (preparation, compilation, review) with the required scope language, independence considerations, and signature block for the engagement partner. Preparation engagements include the specific disclaimer language in the SSARS 70 series where applicable.

PCAOB engagement standards

Audit engagement letters for issuer clients.

Firms registered with the PCAOB and doing audit work on SEC issuers need engagement letters that reference the PCAOB auditing standards, the independence requirements under Section 10A of the Securities Exchange Act, and the audit committee communication requirements. Strkr's audit engagement templates carry the current PCAOB AS references and the audit committee communication protocol attachments.

Section 7525 privilege language

Federal tax practitioner privilege in advisory letters.

Internal Revenue Code Section 7525 extends a limited privilege to federally authorized tax practitioners for non-criminal tax matters, parallel to the attorney-client privilege. Advisory engagements intending to invoke 7525 need specific scope and confidentiality language. Strkr's advisory template library includes the 7525 framing with the appropriate scope limits and the client-acknowledgment block.

State board rules and licensing

Jurisdiction-specific advertising and solicitation rules.

State boards of accountancy impose state-specific rules on how CPA firms can advertise, solicit, and describe services. California, Texas, and New York have the most detailed rules. Strkr tracks the firm's licensed states on the practice record and surfaces jurisdiction-specific review flags on proposal language that references cross-state practice. The licensing partner sees the exposure at a glance.

IRS Form 2848 and CAF handling

Power of attorney tracking with CAF number logging.

Form 2848 Power of Attorney engagements require accurate CAF number assignment, specific-tax-years coverage, and expiration tracking. Strkr tracks each Form 2848 as a record with the client, CAF number, covered tax years, expiration date, and the partner or EA designated. Expiration reminders fire 60 days before the stated expiration. The firm's IRS representation practice runs on a surfaced list rather than a hand-maintained spreadsheet.

What CPA firm partners compare on

The honest evaluation checklist.

Most proposal-software comparison articles rank by template library size or by e-signature flow. The real evaluation criteria sit elsewhere for a CPA firm: template-currency on AICPA and IRS standards, pricing-math automation, CRM-connected proposal history, and three-year total cost of ownership. The six criteria below are what every managing partner mentions after they have switched tools once.

Template currency on standards

Does the vendor track AICPA and IRS updates for you.

Strkr: SSTS, SSARS, PCAOB AS, and IRS Rev Proc updates tracked at the template layer with review flags. Ignition: engagement letter templates for CPA firms with periodic updates. PandaDoc and Proposify: no accountant-specific standard tracking. Qwilr: no accountant-specific standard tracking. For a firm that cares about the risk-management side of the proposal process, this is where generic tools fall off the list.

Pricing-math automation

Does the tool compute 1040 + K-1 + state from client structure.

Strkr: pricing-package engine reads client entity structure and jurisdictions, computes the engagement fee from your rate card. Ignition: pricing packages with manual K-1 and state counts entered per engagement. PandaDoc and Proposify: line-item builder, manual entry. Qwilr: pricing block with manual entry. For a firm doing 400 letters in Q1, the automation delta compounds through the busy season.

CRM-connected proposal history

Does the proposal history live on the client record.

Strkr: every proposal lives on the client record with pricing, scope, signatures, and timestamps across five years. Ignition: proposal history available within Ignition, with the CRM connection depending on the firm's practice management stack. PandaDoc and Proposify: proposal history inside the proposal tool with CRM sync depending on integration. For a firm reviewing a client ahead of the next engagement, the connected history matters.

Three-year total cost

What this actually costs by year three.

Strkr: flat per-seat pricing with proposals, e-signature, and CRM on every paid tier. Ignition: per-proposal-sent fee plus payment-processing fees, often 20,000 to 60,000 dollars annually for a 400-client firm. PandaDoc and Proposify: per-user pricing with limited accountant-specific templates. Qwilr: per-user pricing. For a firm sending 1,000-plus letters in Q1, the per-proposal-fee model is a specific cost disadvantage.

Partner review workflow

How letters route from preparer to partner to client.

Strkr: preparer drafts, letter routes to the engagement partner, partner approves or returns with revisions, client receives from the partner. Ignition: review workflow configurable at the practice level. PandaDoc: approval workflow available on higher tiers. Proposify: approval workflow available. For a firm with risk-management discipline around partner review, the native workflow matters more than the signing experience.

Rate card and realization reporting

Does the tool connect pricing to firm realization goals.

Strkr: proposal builder pulls staff rates from the practice management side, calculates realization against the proposed fee, surfaces a flag if the rate drops below the partner floor. Ignition: pricing within packages with realization reported through the practice management integration. PandaDoc, Proposify, Qwilr: no realization reporting. For firms tracking advisory realization as a managing-partner KPI, this is a specific gap in generic tools.

Head-to-head

Strkr vs Ignition for a mid-sized CPA firm specifically.

Ignition (formerly Practice Ignition) is the most common proposal and engagement letter tool at CPA firms and the one every evaluation runs against. PandaDoc and Proposify compete at the generic end. Here is the honest head-to-head when the question is "engagement letter software for a 15-partner firm with 400 to 800 clients" rather than "generic proposal tool with an accountant template pack."

Feature Strkr Ignition
Pricing basis Flat per seat with proposals, e-signature, and CRM included Per-proposal-sent fee plus payment-processing fees
AICPA SSTS tracking Template versions tracked, review flags on superseded standards Accountant-specific templates with periodic updates
Circular 230 disclosure blocks Section 10.37, 10.33, 10.29 blocks tagged by engagement type Boilerplate disclosure sections available
1040 + K-1 + state pricing math Engine reads client entity structure and computes from rate card Pricing packages with manual K-1 and state counts
Form 2848 and 8821 handling Attachments with CAF number, tax years, expiration tracking Attachment support without CAF tracking
Section 7216 consent capture Required separate signatures with IRS-specified language Available via custom clauses
CRM-connected history Proposal history on the client record across all five years Proposal history inside Ignition with CRM sync
Partner review queue Native preparer-to-partner-to-client workflow Review workflow configurable per practice
Realization reporting Proposed fee against realization goal with partner floor flag Realization reported through practice management
Prior-year rollforward Engagement rolls forward with scope and pricing deltas flagged Proposal duplicate with manual edits
How teams use Strkr

How CPA firms run Strkr proposals today.

The common thread across accounting customers: get the engagement letters, the pricing math, the Circular 230 disclosures, and the CRM record on one tool and stop paying per-proposal fees that scale against your busy season. The playbooks below are motions live on CPA firm accounts right now.

Multi-partner tax practice

1,100 engagement letters in six weeks with partner review on every one.

A 14-partner CPA firm in Minneapolis runs the January-through-February engagement letter sprint on Strkr. 1,100 letters generated from prior-year rollforward with scope deltas flagged, pricing computed from client entity structure, partner review queue clearing in roughly four hours per partner per day. The firm cut average proposal creation time from 24 minutes to 6 minutes per letter, which freed roughly 330 partner hours across the sprint. The e-signature plus Section 7216 consent capture ran at a 94 percent completion rate within seven days of send, which is well above the firm's historical rate on hand-mailed letters.

CAS and advisory practice

Advisory proposals with realization tracked against partner floor.

A client accounting services practice at a 40-staff firm runs advisory proposals (outsourced CFO, Section 199A planning, R&D credit studies) through Strkr with realization computed against the firm's advisory floor of 88 percent. Proposals landing below the floor route to the managing partner before send. The firm caught 11 proposals in the first quarter that would have landed at 76 to 84 percent realization, repriced them in review, and recovered an estimated 180,000 dollars in annualized fee revenue. The managing partner uses the realization dashboard as a weekly operational review.

Representation and controversy practice

Form 2848 tracking with CAF expiration reminders.

A controversy practice representing 60 to 90 taxpayers before the IRS at any point runs Form 2848 tracking on Strkr. Each 2848 logs with the client, CAF number, covered tax years, and expiration date. Expiration reminders fire 60 days out. The practice lead opens the dashboard and sees active representations, pending renewals, and expired forms. Before Strkr, this ran on a shared spreadsheet that occasionally missed renewals; the first year on Strkr caught two expiring POAs that would have left the firm without authority to represent during active audits.

PCAOB-registered audit practice

Audit engagement letters with AS citations and committee communications.

A PCAOB-registered audit firm with 12 issuer audit clients runs audit engagement letters through Strkr with current AS citations, Section 10A independence language, and the audit committee communication requirement protocol attached. The engagement partner, concurring reviewer, and audit committee chair all route through the e-signature flow. The firm's inspection preparation runs faster because the engagement letter template evidence is centralized and version-controlled, which is a specific finding category the firm wanted to close.

Multi-office regional firm

Rate card standardization across 6 offices with local adjustments.

A regional CPA firm with 6 offices across the Midwest standardized rate cards on Strkr with local-market adjustments baked into the pricing-package engine. The Chicago office rate is one setting; the Des Moines office rate is another. Proposals generated by preparers at each office pull the correct rate automatically. The firm's managing partner sees pricing consistency across offices in a quarterly report and the office partners stop debating the client-by-client rate quote because the system handles the market variation.

Engagement letter season without the Ignition invoice or the per-proposal fee.

Start a 14-day trial with the accounting proposal configuration enabled: prior-year rollforward, 1040 + K-1 + state pricing math, AICPA-safe templates, Circular 230 disclosure blocks, Section 7216 consent capture, Form 2848 tracking, partner review queue, and e-signature. Migrate from Ignition, PandaDoc, or Proposify with the proposal history preserved on the client record.

Start free trial See pricing
Common questions

What buyers in this bucket ask most.

Is Strkr a good fit for a solo CPA or a two-partner firm?

Yes, if the volume justifies it. A solo preparer sending 60 to 120 engagement letters a year gets real time savings from the prior-year rollforward, the pricing-math automation, and the Section 7216 consent capture because the per-letter time saving compounds through busy season. At the smallest end of the market, Ignition's per-proposal pricing can be competitive on dollars but loses on the realization tracking and CRM integration. Strkr Starter at the entry tier gives you the proposal builder, e-signature, CRM, and practice management hooks on one line. The decision usually comes down to whether the firm plans to add staff or stay solo.

How does Strkr handle AICPA SSTS compliance in templates?

Each engagement letter template carries a version tag for the SSTS and SSARS it references. When AICPA revises a standard, Strkr's template library updates and surfaces a review flag on firm-specific templates that still cite the superseded version. The risk partner clears the review once per update rather than auditing all templates every year. The SSTS revisions effective January 2024 (SSTS Nos. 1 through 7) are already reflected in the standard template set, and the firm's customized versions carry the review flag until the risk partner approves the updated language. The AICPA compliance evidence runs as a report with the template version history.

What Circular 230 disclosure language does Strkr include by default?

The template library carries Section 10.33 best-practices framing, Section 10.21 due-diligence language, Section 10.29 conflicts-of-interest disclosure, and Section 10.37 covered-opinion language. Disclosures tag by engagement type: tax return preparation uses the preparation set, written tax advice uses the advice set with 10.37 where applicable, representation uses the Section 10.29 conflicts framing with Form 2848 referencing. The firm's managing partner selects the engagement type and the correct disclosures render automatically. Firm-specific disclosure variations (specialty areas, particular risk-management positions) customize at the template level and apply firm-wide.

Can Strkr handle multi-state tax returns in the pricing-package engine?

Yes. The pricing engine reads jurisdictions attached to the client record (California, Oregon, New York, Illinois, Texas, and so on) and adds the per-state return rate from your firm's rate card. For a traveling consultant with six state filings, the engagement letter shows the base 1040 rate plus the six state rates plus any part-year adjustments. The rate card updates once and applies to all clients. The firm's managing partner can set market-specific adjustments (a different Chicago rate versus a different Des Moines rate) that render based on which office is the client lead.

What is the migration path from Ignition, PandaDoc, or Proposify?

Strkr has a CPA proposal migration tool that pulls client records, proposal history, pricing packages, engagement scope, signature audit trails, and template libraries from Ignition (via Ignition API), PandaDoc (via PandaDoc API), and Proposify (via CSV export plus template import). Most migrations complete in 2 to 4 weeks for firms up to 50 staff, with a parallel-running period across busy season if the migration lands in Q4. The template rebuild is the most labor-intensive piece and usually takes 1 to 2 weeks of a dedicated engagement partner's time, because the firm's risk-management posture around template language is firm-specific and worth doing by hand.

What size CPA firm is Strkr not a good fit for?

The largest end of the sector (Big Four, top-25 national firms with specific CRM-and-practice-management stacks like CCH Axcess or Thomson Reuters Onvio) usually stays on their existing stack because the switching cost is enormous and the proposal workflow is tied to deeper practice-management automation. For firms below roughly 500 total staff, Strkr is almost always a strong fit on both the compliance posture and the three-year total cost. Firms with heavy custom development on Salesforce Financial Services Cloud at the practice-management layer should discuss integration shape on the discovery call.

Also built for

Related audiences.

For Accountants For Accounting Firms For Consultants For Consulting Firms For Agencies

Try it free. Bring your team next week.

No sales call, no migration consultant, no four-month implementation. Enter your card, get 14 days of the full Pro tier, cancel any time before day 14 with zero charge. Spin up a workspace, import your CSV, and have something useful before lunch.

Start free trial See pricing