The retirement of the IRS Filing Information Returns Electronically, or FIRE, system changes more than the file format enterprises use to submit information returns. Organizations preparing for Tax Year 2026 need to account for new IRIS XML requirements, data validation, error handling, state reporting, testing, and recurring certification.
Enterprises that depend on an external filing provider need to determine whether that provider can support the full filing workflow surrounding IRIS submission.
A provider describing its platform as “IRIS ready” is a useful starting point, but the label does not explain how the system handles an enterprise’s full filing process. Buyers need to know what happens from the moment data leaves an ERP, accounts payable, payroll, or another source system through validation, submission, error resolution, corrections, state reporting, and recipient delivery.
Sovos’ IRIS guidance takes a similarly broad view of readiness, covering data quality and state filing along with testing and internal processes.
Organizations in the earliest readiness stage may know FIRE retires on December 31, 2026, but still have unresolved questions around technology, data, state filing, and operational ownership. These five areas can help tax, finance, and technology leaders evaluate whether a prospective provider can support the full reporting process.
- What to look for in your IRIS Solution Provider
- 1. Define what the provider’s IRIS capabilities actually cover
- 2. Examine integration, data transformation, and validation
- 3. Understand how the solution handles errors, corrections, and volume
- 4. Assess federal and state reporting together
- 5. Evaluate implementation and ongoing provider support
- Build the evaluation around the full reporting environment
What to look for in your IRIS Solution Provider
Evaluation area | What to investigate |
|---|---|
| IRIS capabilities | XML generation, validation, transmission, testing, and corrections |
| Data and integration | Source-system compatibility, mapping, transformation, and TIN/name validation |
| Filing operations | IRS responses, exception handling, corrections, and high-volume workflows |
| State reporting | State coverage, filing methods, formats, and regulatory updates |
| Implementation and support | Testing resources, ownership, ongoing support, and annual changes |
1. Define what the provider’s IRIS capabilities actually cover
Start by asking what “IRIS compatible” means in practical terms.
A provider should be able to explain which forms it supports, how it generates IRIS XML, how it validates that output, and how submissions reach the IRS. Enterprise teams should also understand whether those functions happen inside one environment or depend on separate systems, exports, or manual steps.
Organizations should seek written confirmation of a provider’s tested IRIS XML capabilities, including how it generates, validates, and transmits files.
Testing also deserves specific attention. Organizations closer to filing readiness are expected to complete an end-to-end test rather than assume that individual components will work together in production. Sovos recommends completing IRIS Assurance Testing System (ATS) testing before the filing window opens.
Ask prospective providers which forms they have tested, which certifications apply to the coming filing season, and what testing your organization will participate in before production filing begins.
2. Examine integration, data transformation, and validation
IRIS filing starts long before a file reaches the IRS.
For large organizations, information-reporting data may come from ERP, accounts payable, payroll, and other systems, often with different naming conventions, field structures, and data-quality rules. A provider therefore needs to do more than accept a finished file. Buyers should look at how the platform receives, maps, validates, and prepares data before submission.
Pay particular attention to:
- ERP, AP, payroll, and other source-system imports
- Data mapping and transformation
- TIN validation
- Payee-name formatting
- Missing or invalid fields
- Duplicate records
- Exceptions that require manual review
Payee-name formatting is one example. Sovos notes that individual names may need to be stored in separate fields for first name, middle initial, last name, and suffix rather than in a single combined field. Poorly mapped names can create TIN/name mismatches even when the TIN itself is correct. Ask how much data transformation the provider handles and what cleanup remains with your team.
Validation timing matters. Waiting until submission leaves teams less time to correct bad data. Continuous TIN and name validation during onboarding and throughout the year can reduce filing-season cleanup.
Determine whether the provider can work with your existing data or requires changes to your current processes.
3. Understand how the solution handles errors, corrections, and volume
Successful transmission is only one step in the filing process.
IRIS changes the way teams need to think about errors. Instead of assuming that problems will surface long after submission, organizations need processes for receiving, routing, investigating, correcting, and resubmitting errors as part of the filing workflow.
A prospective provider should be able to demonstrate what happens after the IRS returns an error.
Ask:
- Where do IRS responses appear?
- Who receives alerts?
- Can errors be assigned to specific users or teams?
- Is there an escalation process?
- Can users see which records require action?
- How are corrections linked to earlier submissions?
- What is required to resubmit corrected records?
- How much of the process is automated?
Enterprises should establish an error-resolution workflow before filing season begins, with clear responsibility for corrections and resubmissions. Under IRIS, corrections also need to link back to earlier submissions through SubmissionID and RecordID, so teams should understand how the provider manages those relationships.
This becomes more important as filing volume grows. A process that works for a few hundred forms can become much harder to manage when tax, finance, or IT teams are handling large numbers of exceptions at once.
Ask providers to demonstrate the workflow using realistic filing volumes and exception scenarios, not just a clean sample file. Pay attention to where employees still need to export spreadsheets, send emails, switch between systems, or track record status manually. Those extra steps can slow down error resolution during filing season.
4. Assess federal and state reporting together
Provider evaluations should account for state reporting requirements alongside federal IRIS filing.
Organizations may still have separate state filing obligations, different submission formats, and different deadlines. A provider that handles federal IRIS submissions but leaves much of the state process manual can still create extra work for tax and finance teams.
Look for a provider that can produce IRIS XML for federal filing while also generating the appropriate formats for states where the organization has filing obligations.
During provider evaluation, determine which states the provider supports and whether it files directly or relies on separate portals or workflows. Review the formats it generates, how it tracks state deadlines, and whether federal and state filings draw from the same source data. The evaluation should also cover how the provider handles state-specific errors and corrections.
State requirements also need ongoing attention. Sovos recommends monitoring state Department of Revenue updates, including changes to Combined Federal/State Filing participation and direct-submission requirements, because state rules may change separately from federal IRIS requirements.
The practical question for buyers is not just whether a provider supports the states you file in today. It is whether the provider has a clear process for keeping those requirements current from one filing year to the next.
5. Evaluate implementation and ongoing provider support
Implementation support can have a significant effect on how smoothly an enterprise moves into production filing.
Enterprise filing projects often involve tax, AP, finance, and IT. Clear ownership is especially important for vendor coordination, data preparation, and testing. During evaluation, determine how the provider will support those teams through implementation and production filing.
Ask what implementation includes, who owns each phase, what testing resources are available, and what happens if issues appear close to filing deadlines. Support expectations should be documented rather than assumed.
The evaluation should also extend beyond the first IRIS filing season.
Sovos recommends treating IRIS compliance as an ongoing process because IRS schemas, form requirements, state rules, and certification needs can change from year to year. That includes planning for annual recertification, monitoring IRS guidance, tracking state changes, and updating internal procedures after each filing cycle.
For buyers, that means asking:
- How does the provider monitor IRS changes?
- How are schema updates incorporated?
- Which form types require recurring testing or certification?
- How are customers notified of changes?
- How are new forms added?
- How does the provider track state regulatory updates?
- What preparation is required from the customer each year?
A provider may be ready for TY2026, but buyers should also look at how it plans to keep pace after the initial transition. If customers are expected to spot regulatory changes first and then push the provider to respond, that creates more work and more risk for internal teams.
Build the evaluation around the full reporting environment
Choosing an IRIS provider should involve more than confirming that the platform supports IRIS.
Enterprise teams should evaluate the full reporting process, including how the provider handles source data, validation, federal and state filing, error resolution, testing, implementation, and ongoing compliance support.
Those same areas should guide provider conversations. Ask how the platform works with your existing systems and data, what remains the customer’s responsibility, how filing issues are handled at scale, and how the provider keeps up with IRS and state changes from one filing cycle to the next.
Sovos’ FIRE-to-IRIS Assessment Tool can help teams assess those areas before speaking with providers and identify where they may still have gaps in technology, data, filing processes, or internal ownership. The goal is to find a provider that can support IRIS filing in the way your organization actually manages information reporting.