Your PAM Summary Has a New Audience: Writing for the Mediator and New Appeals Team

Post-Appeals Mediation is not a second protest, and the discussion summary should not read like one. That distinction matters even more during the IRS Independent Office of Appeals’ current PAM pilot. When a request is accepted, Appeals assigns the matter to a new Appeals Technical Employee and a receiving Appeals Team Manager who did not handle the original negotiations. They represent Appeals in the mediation. The mediator is new. The Appeals team is new. The disputed record is not.

I have served as a nonpartisan mediator selected and paid by the taxpayer in IRS PAM matters numerous times. The most useful summaries do not try to win the entire case on paper. They teach the new audience enough to understand the issue, identify the actual barrier to settlement, and walk into the session ready to negotiate. They also incorporate all previous information provided as attachments in their response.

The Pilot Changed the Reader

The September 11, 2025 interim guidance created a nationwide pilot that reassigns accepted PAM cases from the referring Appeals team to a receiving team. The pilot is scheduled to remain in effect through September 11, 2027. The IRS has described the arrangement as a “fresh look,” but not a new appeal.

That last distinction should control the writing. The receiving team is not reopening the administrative process from the beginning. It is stepping into a record already developed through Examination and Appeals. At the same time, it may not share the history, shorthand, or assumptions that accumulated during the original settlement discussions. The taxpayer’s discussion summary may be the first document that teaches the new team what actually prevents resolution.

A summary that assumes institutional memory starts the mediation behind. A summary that tries to relitigate every disputed point wastes the value of the fresh look. The better approach is to orient the new team, show where the parties truly disagree, and make the decision path visible.

Do Not Recycle the Appeals Protest

An Appeals protest has one primary job: preserve and explain the taxpayer’s objections to the proposed adjustment. A PAM discussion summary has a different job. It must help the mediator and the new Appeals team understand what remains unsettled after Appeals has already worked the case if known.

The Internal Revenue Manual says each party prepares a written summation of its position and arguments. The model agreement suggests a 20-page limit, although the parties may agree on another length. Twenty pages is a ceiling only if the agreement makes it one. It is not an invitation to see whether footnotes can reproduce by cellular division.

Start with the decision, not the procedural autobiography. On the first page, identify the issue, the tax periods and dollars at stake, what the parties agree about, what remains disputed, and the practical reason settlement failed. If the dispute can be resolved only by deciding a legal threshold, a factual inference, a valuation range, or an allocation percentage, say that plainly.

Why Do I Need to Include Previous Information?

Ideally each party in the mediation would start from the same starting point. However, your independent mediator (if you choose to hire one) does not have the same access to the IRS administrative file that IRS employees have. What does that mean? It means, if you want your mediator to know what was in the protest, rebuttal, or initial Appeals settlement offer, you must incorporate it into the issue summary.

You can do this by simply making it part of your issue summary. I recommend bates numbering all the pages in the issue summary and using sentence numbers to make referencing in the PAM session simple.

Build a Decision Map

The strongest summaries give the reader a map. State the exact question the participants must answer during the session. Then show the limited number of routes to an agreement.

For a legal issue, identify the competing rules and the fact that triggers each one. For a factual issue, identify which fact is disputed and why the existing record supports the taxpayer’s reading. For a valuation or percentage issue, identify the credible range and the assumptions that move the number. If there are multiple tax periods, show whether the same resolution applies to all periods or whether the evidence changes year by year.

This structure helps the mediator do what the mediator is authorized to do: facilitate communication, help define the issues, and promote settlement. The mediator does not have settlement authority and cannot impose a result. A summary should therefore give the mediator usable questions and give the decision-makers recognizable options.

Separate the Record from the Argument

The current IRM states that PAM generally addresses the issues left after unsuccessful settlement discussions and that new facts or arguments are not appropriate once mediation begins. That makes record discipline essential.

Label agreed facts, disputed facts, and inferences separately. Do not describe a contested inference as an established fact. Do not bury a missing document inside a confident conclusion. If the settlement theory depends on information that never entered the administrative record, address that problem before the session or narrow the proposed resolution to what the record can support.

This is especially important in document-heavy cases. A large file is not necessarily a developed record. The summary should cite the few documents that establish the key proposition, explain what each document proves, and acknowledge any material limitation. Dumping hundreds of pages into an exhibit packet does not cure a record gap. It only makes the gap harder to find.

Explain Both Sides’ Risk Honestly

PAM works best when the parties can discuss litigation risk without pretending that every uncertainty favors them. Explain the government’s position fairly. Identify its strongest fact or authority. Then explain why the taxpayer believes the remaining risk supports movement.

That does not mean giving away the case. It means making the proposed compromise intelligible. A mediator cannot help test a settlement barrier if the summary caricatures the other side’s position or treats concession as weakness. The reader should understand why the taxpayer believes its legal position is correct and why a negotiated outcome may still be better than continued controversy.

Where possible, describe two or three resolution paths. One may track the taxpayer’s legal position. Another may resolve a factual uncertainty through a percentage or range. A third may isolate one period or transaction where the evidence differs. The point is not to make offers in the summary unless that is strategically appropriate. The point is to show that the dispute has shape.

Write for Two Audiences

The discussion summary serves the mediator and the fresh-look Appeals team, but their roles are different. The mediator needs the settlement barrier, the communication problem, and the questions that could move the parties. The Appeals team needs enough law, facts, and record citations to evaluate those questions responsibly.

A good summary meets both needs without becoming two documents. Use short sections, descriptive headings, and record citations that can be checked quickly. Define technical terms. If a computation matters, show the arithmetic and the assumption behind it. If the issue turns on credibility, explain what in the existing record makes the testimony or document reliable.

The summary should also identify who has authority to resolve the case. The IRM requires each side to have at least one participant with decision-making authority. Participant lists are generally exchanged two weeks before the session. If a technical specialist, valuation expert, or other IRS participant may be needed, raise that during the administrative conference rather than discovering the problem after the session begins.

Use Exhibits as Tools, Not Storage

The model PAM agreement contemplates pre-existing documents and reports as exhibits. Build a short exhibit index that links each document to a proposition in the summary. Five useful exhibits are better than a five-hundred-page file no one can navigate in real time.

For each exhibit, ask three questions: What does it prove? Is it already part of the developed record? Where should the reader look? A pinpoint page reference is far more useful than “see attached.” If an exhibit cuts both ways, say so and explain why the taxpayer’s interpretation remains stronger.

Confirm the Process Before You Finish

The administrative conference and the Agreement to Mediate are not formalities. The agreement should identify the issues, participants, session date, submission deadlines, and the rule against unsolicited ex parte communications. The IRM generally expects the agreement within three weeks after the administrative conference and the session within 60 days after the agreement, although the actual schedule is controlled by the signed agreement.

Discussion summaries are generally due two weeks before the session unless the agreement says otherwise. The case should have at least 12 months remaining on the limitations period when the session concludes. Confirm those items before submitting the summary. A polished position paper does not compensate for the wrong issue statement, a missing decision-maker, or an expiring statute.

A Practical Final Check

Before the summary goes out, confirm that it answers these questions: What exact issue must be resolved? What dollars and periods are involved? Which facts are agreed, disputed, or inferred? What law and current administrative guidance control? What caused the original negotiations to stop? What realistic paths could resolve the dispute? Which record documents support each material proposition? Who has authority to agree? What are the submission, participant, session, and statute deadlines?

Then remove anything that does not help answer those questions. A good PAM summary is not shorter because the issue is simple. It is disciplined because mediation time is scarce.

The Bottom Line

The fresh-look pilot creates a real opportunity, but it also creates a new communication burden. The taxpayer cannot assume that the receiving Appeals team knows what the first team knew. The discussion summary must carry the case from the developed record into a focused settlement conversation.

Contact us if you are considering Post-Appeals Mediation or need a nonpartisan mediator who understands how IRS cases are developed, evaluated, and resolved.

We left the IRS. You're welcome.

Sources

IRS Interim Guidance Memorandum AP-08-0925-0017 (Sept. 11, 2025): https://www.irs.gov/pub/foia/ig/appeals/ap-08-0925-0017.pdf

Internal Revenue Manual 8.26.5, Post-Appeals Mediation: https://www.irs.gov/irm/part8/irm_08-026-005

IRS Post-Appeals Mediation page: https://www.irs.gov/appeals/post-appeals-mediation

Revenue Procedure 2014-63: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-14-63.pdf

IRS Publication 4167, Appeals: Introduction to Alternative Dispute Resolution: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4167.pdf

IR-2025-100, IRS Independent Office of Appeals starts Post-Appeals Mediation pilot program (Oct. 1, 2025): https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-independent-office-of-appeals-starts-post-appeals-mediation-pilot-program