TC 960: Centralized Authorization File Indicator

What the code actually does

TC 960 sets the authorization indicator on a module. IRS Document 6209, Section 8A defines it as adding or updating "CAF indicator to the module," and states the consequence in the next sentence: it "causes notices and/or refunds to be sent to authorized representative."

That is the whole practical value of the code. A representative’s authorization exists on paper when the form is signed, and exists administratively when it is processed onto the Centralized Authorization File — but it only reaches a particular tax year when this transaction posts to that module. Filing and posting are different events, and the gap between them is where representation quietly fails.

Doc 6209 also records a second route: it "can be generated when a TC 150 or 620 (BMF) with a significant CAF code posts and an unreversed TC 960 is not already posted." A return carrying a representative’s CAF number can bring the indicator with it.

Its absence is the thing worth checking

A practitioner who has filed a Form 2848 and heard nothing has no way to distinguish "the client has had no correspondence" from "the client has had correspondence and I was not copied." The transcript resolves it. If the module carries no authorization indicator, the representative is not on it, and any notice that went out went only to the taxpayer.

This matters most precisely when it is least visible — on the years a client did not think to mention, on a period added to an engagement later, or where a form listed some years and not others. The authorization is per module, and so is this code.

Checking it should be routine at the start of an engagement rather than diagnostic after something goes wrong. Where it is missing, the fix is administrative and quick; where it is missing and a deadline has run, the fix is neither.

It is worth being clear with clients about what the indicator does and does not change. It causes copies of correspondence to be sent; it does not make the representative responsible for deadlines the taxpayer was separately notified of, and it does not stop notices going to the taxpayer as well. A client who says “my accountant handles the mail” has usually misunderstood a arrangement in which both of them receive it.

What the underlying authorization actually is

IRM 21.3.7.5.3 governs the processing of the two forms behind the code, and carries a few rules worth knowing before a rejection arrives. Old revisions are refused outright: "the CAF processing sites will not process Form 2848 with a revision date prior to October 2011," and a letter goes to the representative asking for a current revision.

A tax information authorization naming the taxpayer as their own designee is also refused, with the Service explaining that a taxpayer does "not need to submit a Form 8821, Tax Information Authorization, to inspect or receive your own confidential tax information." The IRM adds a considerate exception where the filing appears to be identity-theft protection.

The two forms are not equivalent in what they permit, though both produce an indicator: one authorises representation, the other only the receipt of information. Which was filed determines what a practitioner can actually do on the Practitioner Priority Service line, regardless of what the transcript shows.

What TC 960 gets confused with

It gets confused with the filing of the form. The form is the request; this is the result. A client’s "we sent that in months ago" is not evidence the indicator posted, and processing backlogs are real.

It gets confused with a marker that carries no fixed meaning of its own. Unlike TC 971, which is gated entirely by a companion action code and can mean dozens of unrelated things, this code means one thing consistently — which makes it unusually reliable to read.

And its reversal gets over-read. The reversing transaction removes the indicator and zeroes the module’s CAF indicator; it can reflect a genuine revocation, but also a superseding authorization, an account merge, or routine maintenance. Doc 6209 records the merge context, and the IRM chapter devotes a subsection to transcripts generated when two modules each carry an indicator from different campuses. A disappeared authorization is worth asking about rather than assuming a client revoked it, and the module history read in sequence with the IRS Transcript Decoder usually shows which it was.

The practitioner’s actual next step

Check for the indicator on every module in the engagement, not just the year that prompted the call.

Where it is absent, assume no copies of notices are reaching you and act accordingly until it posts.

Confirm which form was filed, because the indicator alone does not distinguish representation from information access.

On a rejection, check the form revision date before refiling the same document.

If an indicator disappeared, establish whether it was revoked, superseded, or lost to an account merge before treating it as a client decision.

Keep the authorization current across engagements, and use the practitioner resource library rather than reconstructing the filing requirements each time.