How to Set Up a Commission Structure That Motivates Your Tax Preparers

Your commission structure sends a message. The wrong one tells preparers you don't value their effort—or worse, that you're trying to nickel-and-dime them on technicalities. The right one turns them into growth engines who actively build your practice while building their own income.

Most practice owners overthink this. They research for weeks, build elaborate spreadsheets, and end up with something so complicated that nobody—including themselves—understands it. Then they wonder why preparers seem unmotivated.

Here's the truth: a simple, clear commission structure beats a "perfect" complicated one every time. This guide walks you through the four main models, helps you pick the right one for your practice, and shows you how to implement it in a week.

Why Commission Structure Matters More Than Commission Amount

Before we talk numbers, let's talk psychology. The structure of your commissions affects behavior more than the dollar amount.

Consider two scenarios:

Scenario A: You pay 20% commission on all returns, calculated monthly, paid 45 days after month-end.

Scenario B: You pay 15% commission on all returns, calculated weekly, paid the following Friday.

Scenario B will almost always generate more motivation, even though it pays less. Why? Because the connection between work and reward is tighter. Preparers see results quickly. The feedback loop is short enough to reinforce behavior.

The 4 Commission Models (And When to Use Each)

Every commission structure is a variation or combination of four basic models. Understanding each one helps you make an informed choice.

Model 1: Flat Rate Per Return

How it works: You pay a fixed dollar amount for every completed return, regardless of complexity or fees charged. Example: $35 per return.

Best for: Simple practices where most returns are similar. Works well for entry-level preparers, seasonal employees, or practices focused on high-volume basic returns.

Model 2: Percentage of Revenue

How it works: Preparers earn a percentage of the fees collected on returns they prepare. Example: 20% of fees.

Best for: Experienced preparers, practices with varied return complexity, situations where you want to incentivize higher-value work.

Model 3: Tiered Structure

How it works: Commission rates increase as preparers hit volume thresholds. Example: 15% on first 100 returns, 20% on returns 101-200, 25% on returns 201+.

Best for: Growth-focused practices that want to reward high performers.

Model 4: Hybrid Model

How it works: Combines elements of other models. Common approach: base salary or hourly rate, plus percentage commission, plus bonuses for hitting targets.

Best for: Larger teams with diverse roles. Practices that want to balance security with performance incentives.

Setting Your Numbers: What to Pay

Now that you understand the models, how do you set actual dollar amounts?

The "10-20-30" Framework: 10% is minimum viable (training positions only). 20% is standard for experienced preparers with benefits. 30% is premium for top performers or 1099 contractors with minimal support.

Building Transparency Into Your System

Trust is the foundation of any compensation system. Without transparency, even generous commissions breed resentment.

Preparers should be able to see, at any time: returns they've completed, commission earned to date, pending amounts awaiting processing, payment history, and how calculations were derived.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Your 7-Day Setup Checklist

Ready to implement? Here's your action plan:

Common Questions

Ready to Implement?

A clear commission structure—one your team understands and trusts—is fundamental to running a motivated, high-performing tax practice. Start simple, document everything, pay promptly, and adjust based on results.

The mechanics matter, but they're just mechanics. What separates growing practices from stagnant ones is the system behind the structure: reliable tracking, transparent reporting, and consistent execution. If you're still using spreadsheets, see why that approach breaks at scale.