All audits are not random......

That said........MOST of the time, in my experience, the reason for the audit became clear after the first meeting with the agent.

And.......that is why I preach to pack a return with supporting details, AFTER a person looks at a completed return and asks the question-------if I were the IRS, what questions would I be asking based on nothing more than the return in front of me...........point------- answer their questions before they have to visit to ask them.

Your accountant may have better info than I........but I know of no publications by IRS or otherwise that provide guidelines similar to what he mentioned.  He could easily be talking about only his experiences.........which are certainly as valid as mine.

Although I have never been able to find any source to validate it, I too understand that an IRS computer "scans" a return, assesses a certain number of points for certain lines----separately or in combination with other data---------and if the total of those points are in excess of XXXX, then the return is kicked out for review by a human.

I do not know for sure that such is the procedure-----but it sounds logical, and would fit with the tools available.

And that is essentially what I do as a human when I review a return-----------does the picture that the return paints logical given all data?

Understand that since 1996 we have had only about 8-10 returns audited, which we prepared.  The rest of the audits that we handle are usually referrals from attorneys whose clients have gotten into hot water, or referrals where the returns were prepared by others.

I repeat..........even though I have NO proof of it, I think the difference is that we pack a lot of info into our returns that most do not.

For example.......... a few years ago when fuel prices were all over the board, a trucker came in who was being chased by the IRS.  We looked at his return..........and he had some procedural errors in it---- for example, the outfit to whom he was contracted, and who LOANED him money periodically for fuel and maintenance, deducted those amounts from his load payments.........and his preparer was showing only the NET as income.

That resulted in his expenses not being "coordinated".  His fuel was off compared to his gross load earnings, his maintenance costs were off vs the fuel used, etc etc etc.

We merely "reconstructed" what should have been done in the first place.........and included a table of fuel costs in the areas in which he was traveling heavily------- Eastern and NEastern US, where the fuel costs were seemingly much higher per gallon, plus he had a ton deadhead miles, due to the high priced loads he had been hauling.

In other words, we tried to "paint a picture" of the business as it occurred.

The audit went thru with no changes...............after we filed in essence an amended return, with the additional data.

Farmers are similar in that farmers are allowed to prepay more expenses, and that can distort the "picture".  I wonder how many have the forethought to highlight the fact their fuel costs, for example, are "2x what they normally are, due to filling all the tanks on Jan 1, Dec 1, and during the rest of the year, in order to catch the cheapest prices........."

It is all perfectly legal.........it is just giving the return some connecting structure.

Or, like the tiling issue.  A comment stating that x acres of crop ground was purchased on yyyyyyy, and immediately tiled.  "Enclosed is a copy of the tiling invoice amounting to 50,000.  Such item has been capitalized, and expensed pursuant to Section 179 (or 168(k))"........and then point out the item on the Form 4562 so the human reviewer gets the sense that the taxpayer (or at least the preparer) is halfway knowledgeable............so the return does not have to be visited to establish probable validity/accuracy.

Finally..........limiting an expense IN MY OPINION to avoid an audit is a precarious way to fly.

AND.........there is tax theory that exists that such is NOT LEGAL, as strange as that sounds.  (I have NOT seen any court cases on it---- which merely means I have not seen any, it does not mean it has not been litigated.)
The theory goes that if a return is manipulated to accomplish a purpose--------allow more earned income credit, AVOID disclosing elements of the business to accomplish a purpose, etc etc.

I cannot believe that IRS would attack a "normal" return on that basis-------- but just be aware that more knowledgeable tax minds than I have believe it is within the realm of IRS to do that.

With respect to the hog confinements being audited........lots of variables there........but I would bet that it gets back to the deduction within the picture painted on the return.

I have NOT heard of any cases myself..........but about say 10+ years ago there was a theory floating in the tax gurus that the IRS was gearing up to kill the deduction for the facility in the situations where the owner was not actually owning the hogs--------rather, he was receiving rent for pig spaces..........which turned the facility into a rental activity, ie a passive activity, and not deductible for 179 or depreciation as a "farm building".

It was serious enough that we watched it closely, and had a backup plan of incorporating those facilities in C corps, where concept of passive activity does not exist.

Do not dismiss the concept of "the tax return must paint a logical picture".

It is probably the most foundational concept in tax return preparation.