KBKG, LLC
Unclaimed65/100 · Mixed evidence
Public-record listing · US (Georgia federal court venue; headquarters not confirmed) · https://www.kbkg.com
Unclaimed listing. This firm has not registered or claimed this page. Everything here comes from public records and the firm’s own public website, as of 2026-10-17.
Claim this listing Claiming lets the firm add information and submit proof, which may raise its score.
What they do
Engineering-based cost segregation provider (studies use construction records, blueprints, inspections and component analysis) with audit support. Its FAQ publishes a typical fee range and refers to the IRS Cost Segregation Audit Techniques Guide. It states that savings are 'roughly 25 to 35 times the cost of the Study' and offers an 'Advantage Audit Guarantee'. No SEC/FINRA, Form D, tax-controversy or fraud cases were found; one federal docket (N.D. Ga., 2024) is an employment-related disability claim.
Public-record summary. Category: Cost segregation studies (S13). Fees: Published range: typically $5,000 - $15,000 per study; varies with building size, type, tenants.
Strategies offered
- Accelerated Depreciation Public record source
Evidence score
65/100 · Mixed evidence45 of 69 applicable points = 65. Rubric v1.1 (2026-10-17). Retrieved 2026-10-17.
19 points are pending because the item could not be checked from public records. If every pending item were verified, the score could reach up to 93 (limited by caps or by items that don't apply). How this is calculated.
| Category | Points | |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory record (weight 25) | 12 / 20 | |
| Tax-controversy record (weight 20) | 20 / 20 | |
| Litigation & complaints (weight 15) | 6 / 15 | |
| Transparency (weight 15) | 4 / 7 | |
| Substance & verifiability (weight 15) | 2 / 3 | |
| Structure quality (weight 10) | 1 / 4 |
Red flags
No red flags (RF1-RF13) were triggered by the public evidence reviewed.
Evidence by item
Each line shows the points awarded, how it was checked and a source link where one exists.
Regulatory record · 12 / 20
| Item | Points | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 Registration status verified for firm and soliciting individuals where required (BD/IA/state; insurance producer if relevant) | n/a | Not applicable | Cost segregation is a professional service, not a securities offering; no registration required for the service itself. |
| R2 No SEC/FINRA disciplinary events for the firm (10-yr lookback) | 8 / 8 | VERIFIED (nothing found) | No SEC/FINRA actions found (IAPD/BrokerCheck: no matching firm). source |
| R3 No disciplinary events for principals/control persons (10-yr lookback) | 0 / 6 | UNVERIFIED | Individual-level checks for principals were not performed in this review (principals are not listed on this page). |
| R4 No state securities-regulator or state AG actions against firm/principals | 4 / 4 | VERIFIED (nothing found) | No state AG or regulator action found by web search. Not exhaustive. |
| R5 Named licensed professionals (CPA/attorney/EA) in good standing | 0 / 2 | UNVERIFIED | Licensed-professional good standing needs state CPA board / bar lookups for named individuals; not performed in this pilot. |
Tax-controversy record · 20 / 20
| Item | Points | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1 Strategy is not a listed transaction / transaction of interest and not a current Dirty Dozen theme | 8 / 8 | VERIFIED | Cost segregation is not a listed transaction/TOI; the IRS publishes an Audit Techniques Guide (Pub. 5653) for studies. source |
| T2 No DOJ Tax Division injunctions / IRC ยงยง6700, 6701 promoter cases against firm or principals | 6 / 6 | VERIFIED (nothing found) | No DOJ injunction or promoter case found (CourtListener RECAP). source |
| T3 No adverse Tax Court / appellate opinions involving the sponsor's prior deals | 4 / 4 | VERIFIED (nothing found) | No Tax Court or appellate opinions naming the firm (CourtListener opinions, 0 hits). source |
| T4 Provides clear reportable-transaction disclosure guidance (Form 8886/8918) where applicable | 2 / 2 | VERIFIED | Strategy is not a listed transaction/TOI, so Form 8886/8918 guidance is N/A-justified (rubric: 2 = clear or N/A-justified). source |
Litigation & complaints · 6 / 15
| Item | Points | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| L1 No material civil fraud/misrepresentation litigation (firm, principals, affiliates) | 3 / 6 | PARTIAL | One federal civil docket names the firm: Lee v. KBKG, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-03482 (N.D. Ga., filed 2024-08-06), nature of suit: ADA employment. Outcome not reviewed; not a misrepresentation or fraud claim (rubric: 3). source |
| L2 Complaint pattern reasonable (BBB, state AG, CFPB where relevant) | 0 / 4 | UNVERIFIED | Complaint history (BBB / state AG) not checked. |
| L3 No bankruptcy/insolvency pattern among principals or affiliates | 3 / 3 | VERIFIED (nothing found) | No bankruptcy case captioned against the firm found (CourtListener). source |
| L4 Entities in good standing with Secretary of State; legal entity names match marketing | 0 / 2 | UNVERIFIED | Secretary of State good-standing not checked: state portals checked use CAPTCHA (e.g., SC businessfilings.sc.gov); not bypassed. Needs a manual lookup or paid registry pull. |
Transparency · 4 / 7
| Item | Points | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| X1 Fees and total costs published or provided in writing before commitment | 4 / 4 | VERIFIED | FAQ states typical study fees of $5,000-$15,000 and the factors that drive price. source |
| X2 Offering documents available before commitment; Form D on EDGAR where applicable | n/a | Not applicable | A professional service; engagement terms are provided by proposal. No offering documents or Form D are applicable. |
| X3 Names tax counsel / opinion issuer and allows direct verification | n/a | Not applicable | No tax-opinion product; studies follow the IRS Audit Techniques Guide. |
| X4 Discloses audit/examination and claim history of prior deals | 0 / 3 | UNVERIFIED | Audit history of prior studies is not published; the FAQ references audit support and an 'Advantage Audit Guarantee' whose terms were not reviewed. source |
Substance & verifiability · 2 / 3
| Item | Points | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| V1 Underlying assets independently verifiable (e.g., interconnection agreements, utility records, deeds, dated site evidence) | n/a | Not applicable | No investment asset is sold; the study analyzes the client's own property. |
| V2 Placed-in-service / completion evidence for prior projects | n/a | Not applicable | Not applicable. |
| V3 Appraisals by independent credentialed appraisers (not promoter-selected) | 2 / 3 | PARTIAL | FAQ says studies are signed by Certified Cost Segregation Professionals (ASCSP CCSP) and cites the IRS guide's preparer-expertise element; credentials of individual preparers were not verified. source |
| V4 Pre-tax economic substance: investment case exists apart from tax benefits | n/a | Not applicable | Not an investment. |
Structure quality · 1 / 4
| Item | Points | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 Independent legal opinion (not solely promoter-paid boilerplate) | n/a | Not applicable | No legal opinion product. |
| Q2 Tax insurance verified directly with named carrier/broker (policy exists, scope understood) | n/a | Not applicable | No tax insurance is claimed in the materials reviewed. |
| Q3 Fees reasonable relative to comparable offerings | 0 / 2 | UNVERIFIED | Needs a written fee comparison set of >=3 comparable offerings; not built in this pilot. |
| Q4 No guaranteed outcomes, benefit multiples or 'audit-proof' claims | 1 / 2 | PARTIAL | FAQ gives a benefit multiple ('roughly 25 to 35 times the cost of the Study') and an 'Advantage Audit Guarantee'; it also states savings vary by property and that the taxpayer bears the burden of substantiation. Treated as a partial: the multiple is relative to the study fee, not to cash invested. source |
Questions to ask this firm
- What are the terms and limits of the 'Advantage Audit Guarantee'?
- Who signs studies, and are credentials verifiable?
- How is the '25 to 35 times' figure computed, and for which property types?
About these scores. Scores reflect only publicly available evidence found as of the retrieval date shown, scored with the same rubric for every firm. They are not an endorsement, rating of quality, accusation or statement about any person. Items we could not check from public records earn no points and are marked Unverified; a firm can supply proof to update them. How we score · Request a correction
Complaints
0 complaints under review · 0 substantiated · 0 with a response from the firm.
Complaints are an allegation until a reviewer decides. We show only the category and status, never the complainant’s identity, the description or any documents. Private complaints are counted but not itemized. The firm can respond by claiming this listing.
Request a correction · Report a complaint
Verification and listing notice
"Verified" means our staff checked the identity, business-registration, and credential details listed against the sources named, on the date shown. It is not an endorsement, rating, or recommendation. Firm- and advisor-reported information is their own statement. Listings are alphabetical; payment never affects order, scores, or warnings.