"The tax industry is a gift for people who want to learn and grow and be challenged. There's never going to come a day where you close volume two of the code and say, 'I figured it all out, I know what it all means now.’” Tony Nitti, Partner — EY National Tax In this final episode of 2024, Tony Nitti shares his journey within the tax industry, emphasizing the importance of finding one’s passion, investing in oneself and overcoming personal challenges. Listen as Tony shares his personal experience and practical advice for career growth and fulfillment in the tax profession. What you’ll learn from this episode: · Finding Your Passion: The importance of identifying and nurturing your specific passion within the tax industry, whether it's the law itself, client relationships, or running a firm. · Invest in Yourself: The value of investing in your knowledge and skills by learning, writing, and teaching the tax law. · Overcome Challenges: Strategies for attracting and retaining talent in the tax industry by providing intellectual challenges and growth opportunities. · Try hard things: The benefits of overcoming fears of public speaking and using writing as a tool to communicate complex concepts and share your passion. Resources S Corporation Shareholder Compensation: How much is Enough?, The Tax Adviser, August 2011 Note: This was the article referenced in the podcast written by Tony. In August 2012, it was the winner of The Tax Adviser’s 2011 Best Article Award. Transcript April Walker: Hello everyone, and welcome to the Tax Section Odyssey podcast where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. Today, I'm excited to be here with Tony Nitti. Tony is a partner at EY National Tax and he's a frequent guest on the show. We were just chatting about we think this is maybe the sixth time he's been with us. We appreciate you being with us. Our topic today is not a techie topic. It is a soft topic, but I think an important one. Tony, you did a session at National Tax which was just a couple of weeks ago, on finding your passion in tax and it incorporated some technical topics. But today, we're just going to lean right into the finding your passion. I think we, as listeners, we just want to hear your story, tell us more about how you started and got where you are today at National Tax at EY, which is pretty impressive, I must say. Tell us more, Tony. Tony Nitti: It's good to be here with you, April. I will also say I admire your bravery, because like you said, we just did this National Tax a couple weeks ago, or at least a shorter version of it you just went charging full speed ahead and said, let's do a podcast before we get our hands on those evaluations. We might just be doubling down on a disastrous decision. April Walker: Never know. Tony Nitti: Nobody wants to hear, but that's not the hope. Obviously, the hope is that something here will resonate with people who are listening who maybe are just struggling to find their center and find their passion within their careers. But if it's all right with you, I always want to address what I consider the elephant in the room of the conversation like this before we get started. When we talk about this passion for tax, when we did it at National Tax, when we're doing it today, we're talking about a specific type of passion for this industry. What I mean by that is this idea that people are lured to the tax industry as I certainly was by a desire to live in and learn the law. Because we take one look at that tax law and we realize that it's something that's not solvable, and we want to spend our careers being challenged and being forced to grow and learning that law and apply it to our clients. But that's not the only passion you can have in a tax industry. This passion for law, you probably need to learn the law regardless of your passion, but I've met many people in my career who have a very different passion than me. People whose passion is client relationships, building a relationship that lasts for decades, other people whose passion would be to run a firm someday because they want to prove that accounting can be done differently. Those are extremely valid passions and we don't mean to discount them, but we're focusing today on a passion for the law. Learning and applying the law, and we're doing it for two reasons, I think. Number 1, at the AICPA, we're keenly aware of the challenges we have attracting and retaining talent. And specific to retaining talent, we just see all these good people at all levels of experience, leave the industry and as they're on their way out the door, they say, You know what, I got into this industry because I wanted to work in the law. I wanted to solve complicated problems for sophisticated clients and be forced to think on my feet. Instead, for the first four years of my career, all I've done is prepare the same 30 tax returns every year. I haven't seen anything new in 18 months, I'm bored out of my mind, I'm going to go try something completely different. That should never happen. It should never happen in this industry because the tax industry, it is a gift for people who want to learn and grow and be challenged. I think we've all been around long enough to know that there's never going to come a day where you close volume two of the code and say, I figured it all out, I know what it all means now. That day is not coming and so we should never lose people because they're bored, because they're not being challenged. But we do, I assume for two reasons. One is the reason we want to tell ourselves when things aren't going well. It's not to say it's not appropriate sometimes. But this is the reason we want it to be and we want it to be because we're not getting a fair shake. We're getting a raw deal. We work for the wrong firm or the wrong people, and we're not getting the type of work that we enjoy. That may be possible. If you're in a situation like that, the beautiful thing about the industry today is there's more change available to you than ever before. We're not tied into geographic regions. There are purely remote firms. You can change your situation in a heartbeat. But there's also a second possibility. That's a possibility that people don't want to embrace as much. But there's a possibility that we're not in a terrible situation, we just haven't let it be known to the people we work for, the people we work with, what we're passionate about. We haven't shown what's meaningful to us and proven to people that this is the type of work that I want to do. That leads to the second reason we're focusing on this specific type of passion for the law. That reason, April is I'm not Tony Robbins, I'm not a paid motivational speaker. The only thing I have to offer your listeners is my experience, and my passion for this industry, there's no two ways about it is rooted in the law. I'm not someone who has a passion necessarily for forging client relationships that last 40 years. I'm not someone who ever thought I would run my own firm. My passion is constant intellectual stimulation, growth, learning that law. The only thing I have to offer people until I become a paid motivational speaker someday and go through the five step training program is my life experience, what I've learned in this career. That's why I just want to address that because I feel bad. I can't tell someone with other types of passions how to reconnect with their passion in tax, because I only know my experience at this point. But the hope would be that my experience can help some people because I am a good example of someone who got into this industry for a specific reason, like I said, this desire to learn and build expertise in the law. And then quickly went down the wrong path that so many of us do, and I arrived at a crossroads where I was ready to leave this industry four or five years in because I wasn't growing. I wasn't the person I wanted to be. I wasn't doing the type of work that lured me to this industry and I had to make a conscious decision at that point to say, if I'm going to stick it out in this industry, I am going to make what I'm passionate about the centerpiece of my career and hope that it pays off. That was, again, a proactive conscious decision, and it paid off in ways that I would have never seen coming because what I found is the more I showed people what I was passionate about, the more I made my passion the centerpiece of my career, the more the industry rewarded me with more of the type of work I was passionate about. We can talk about that process. But that decision being something that I decided to do proactively, I also ended up learning lessons later in my career that were taught to me that I didn't decide to do. That I learned the hard way, that had made all the difference as far as understanding, that in life, in our careers, it's probably best to leave no stone unturned. To try different things, to find out what you're capable of, what you might be passionate about, and just say yes to new opportunities. It's been a mix of making a proactive decision to invest in myself and we can talk about that. And then being taught through just the harsh reality of life that you're probably best served to say yes to as many opportunities as you can to just constantly move the goal posts on what you love and what you need out of your career to be happy. With that long rambling introduction.... April Walker: I think it's good. You don't have to convince me because I think some of the themes in your story will apply to a lot of people, even if, like you said, their passion is not necessarily your direction or whatever. Let's get into it. Tony Nitti: That would be the hope. Like I said, it's always uncomfortable because I only have my own experience to talk about, you end up talking about your own experience the whole time and you just sit there and go, why do
Note: This podcast episode was recorded Nov. 20, 2024, and since then, the U.S. House of Representatives races have been called, giving the Republicans 220 congressional members and the Democrats 215. This balance could change depending on potential special elections if some members of the House are appointed to positions within President-Elect Trump’s administration. In this episode of the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcast, Kasey Pittman, CPA, MST, Director of Tax Policy — Baker Tilly US LLP, discusses potential upcoming tax legislation for 2025, focusing on the complexities and challenges of extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and other tax provisions. What you’ll learn from this episode: The potential complexities and challenges of extending provisions of the TCJA and other tax legislation. The implications of a unified government and the reconciliation process for passing tax legislation. The financial constraints posed by the national debt and the importance of managing the deficit. The influence of individual policymakers and the importance of state and local tax (SALT) deductions. Potential revenue raisers like tariffs and ending the employee retention credit early, and their impact on the overall tax legislation. AICPA resources Planning for tax changes — CPAs need to not only brace for tax law changes such as the TCJA and expiring provisions but also be proactive in planning for them. Tax advocacy — Advocacy is a core element of our purpose and value proposition. It is a strong mechanism for promoting trust and confidence in the CPA and CGMA credentials around the world. Transcript April Walker: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the tax section, and I'm here today with Kasey Pittman. Kasey is the director of Tax Policy with Baker Tilly's National Tax Office. Welcome, Kasey. Kasey Pittman: Thank you for having me. April Walker: I thought we'd spend a few minutes today setting expectations for tax legislation for 2025. First, a little bit of a spoiler, tax legislation is likely, right, but what it will actually entail is probably a lot more complicated than just a straight status quo extension of TCJA. Kasey, let's set the stage a little bit and talk about what we know about the makeup of the government and what that will mean for upcoming legislation. Kasey Pittman: I think going into the election, the vast majority of people assumed we were going to wind up in some divided government. We knew it was very likely that Republicans would capture the Senate. The math there was not very good for Democrats, just in terms of how many seats were up, and one of the Democratic-turned-independent retiring senators from a deep red state was almost a certainty to flip. I think the general thinking was that either Democrats would capture the White House or the House, and neither of those things came to fruition. We are sitting here in the 2024 election was a Republican sweep. We've done a lot of worrying about things that we can let go of, and I think probably we'll touch on that a little bit later in the podcast. But the margins aren't very big. Trump captured the White House actually by a good margin in terms of both electoral votes and total votes in the country. It looks like Senate Republicans will have the majority with a 53-47 split between Republicans and Democrats. The house is currently unknown. We know that the House has captured 218, and that's what you need for the majority. There's 435 seats. 218 is literally a one seat majority. There are five races outstanding, and probably threeish, maybe four of those are likely to go Republican. We're just waiting on final vote counts. In the House, we're looking at a few vote margin, in the Senate, we're looking at a few vote margin, and that can make legislating really difficult. One of the themes we touch on here as we go through is reconciliation. When you have a unified government, and a unified government is one where one party has both chambers in Congress, and the White House, which is what we're going into in 2025, there's this process that you can use for certain types of legislation, fiscal legislation called reconciliation. What reconciliation does is it allows you to overcome the filibuster in the Senate. You actually only need a simple majority, like 51 votes in the Senate to pass a bill, but anybody can hold up a bill with a filibuster, and you need 60 votes to end debate and force the vote on the floor. But this type of legislation doesn't require that, so we can move forward with a simple majority. However, there are a lot of limitations to the reconciliation process. Everything in a reconciliation bill has to be financial. It needs to deal with spending or revenues and it can't be incidentally related to those. That has to be its primary purpose. Tax provisions are perfect for this. It cannot increase the deficit outside of the budget window. The budget window is typically 10 years. Then inside that budget window, you can only increase or decrease the deficit by the amount in the reconciliation instructions. Reconciliation instructions are set again, by a simple majority on a budget resolution in the House and in the Senate. That number can be hard to define. We also can't touch Social Security, by the way, which is why you never see Social Security in a reconciliation bill. However, that number is really difficult to come to an agreement on sometimes, and I predict that we're going to face some issues just in getting to that budget reconciliation number before we even start to put together the bill. April Walker: That's a great summary, and we used reconciliation before to actually pass TCJA and some other legislation in the past few years, but it's still not how I grew up learning how law was passed. It's a little bit interesting and that's a great summary. Kasey, I led with saying, we don't think it's going to be a straight extension of TCJA and some of the other proposals that have been thrown out throughout campaigns. Talk through a little bit about specific provisions, what they're scoring out at, why they may or may not be included in this legislation. Again, I don't think we have to say this. This is all just speculation on our part. We will have to see what we will see once it turns to 2025. Kasey Pittman: Some of it is really speculative. We're guessing, they are educated guesses based on history and based on what influential policymakers are telling us. For many months, Republicans have really optimistically been planning for reconciliation, hoping to capture both chambers, hoping that Trump would be in the White House. They've been planning. Honestly, there's been a ton of organization inside the House Ways and Means Committee around it. What I said just a minute ago was that I think we're going to have trouble getting to that number, and here's why. If we want a blanket 10-year extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, all these taxpayer-favorable provisions, they're mostly taxpayer-favorable and we'll get into that in a second too. It's going to cost $4.6 trillion. Just for benchmarking for everybody, our national debt, which is the sum accumulation of all the deficits we've ever run right now is $35 trillion. That's really impactful because each year, honestly, I believe since Clinton, we've run at a deficit and some of the Clinton years too. But each year, since I was in middle school, we've run at a deficit, which means we're spending more money than we're bringing in, and part of the reason we're spending more money than we're bringing in is because we have to pay interest on all this debt. It's really come to a head over the last couple of years for two reasons. One, our debt skyrocketed. Recently, TCJA added to it. COVID certainly didn't help it at all. Then additionally, because we've had such high inflation, the Fed has increased interest rates and that's the rate that we pay to service the debt. In FY 24, which ended at the end of September. This year, we paid over a trillion dollars just to service our debt, not paying down our debt, just paying the interest on our debt. That's more than we spent on defense spending for the entire year. It becomes a liability if our debt is too large. Particularly, we like to compare it to our GDP. This year we ran a $1.8 trillion deficit. Over a trillion of that we could say is attributable to interest costs. Anyway, here we are. We've got $4.6 trillion to extend the TCJA. Then we've got a whole host of other campaign proposals that Trump made on the trail. No SALT, and we'll get to SALT in a second. No SALT, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security benefits. There's family caregivers credit for home caregivers. There's just a number of things, and some of them are hard to score because there's not a lot of details around the policy yet. They're more on the idea than the actual detailed policy phase at this point but those are a lot and estimates are 8-10 trillion with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act plus all of the other campaign promises, and that is just wild as compared to our current national debt and the fiscal responsibility that I think a lot of policymakers and Americans really are focused on. Do I think that Senate Republicans and House Republicans are going to come together and say, let's write a $10 trillion bill that's not paid for at all, that increases the deficit? No, I don't. We still have deficit hawks in the Republican Party, we have people who are really concerned about it and for good reason. That's going to be a struggle. I want to say SALT is really important here. Republicans are fairly united in the general extension of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. There's a lot of campaigning this cycle on it. It's been a priority where we're fairly unified. However, that's n
In this joint episode with the JofA podcast, host Neil Amato discusses with Melanie Lauridsen, Vice President of Tax Policy & Advocacy for the AICPA, what tax practitioners can expect regarding tax legislation. The conversation covers key tax topics following the 2024 election, including the future of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting, and disaster relief efforts. Melanie provides insights into the challenges and opportunities facing tax professionals in 2025, emphasizing the importance of staying informed. What you’ll learn from this episode: The latest updates on disaster relief for BOI reporting. Melanie’s insights about the potential future of the TCJA provisions. How IRS funding might be impacted by the new administration AICPA resources Planning for tax changes – CPAs need to not only brace for tax law changes such as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and expiring provisions but also be proactive in planning for them. Tax Advocacy – Advocacy is a core element of our purpose and value proposition. It is a strong mechanism for promoting trust and confidence in the CPA and CGMA credentials around the world. Transcript April Walker: Welcome back to the AICPA’s Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, lead manager from the Tax section, and today we have a joint episode with the JOA, providing information on several important tax topics, such as BOI, disaster relief, and also upcoming potential tax legislation. Let's hear more. Neil Amato: Welcome to the Journal of Accountancy podcast. This is Neil Amato with the JofA. This episode is a special collaboration between the JofA and the Tax Section Odyssey podcast. It's Nov. 19 as we're recording, two weeks since the 2024 election. With the election over, we have results. We also have questions about the future of several tax topics. Here to provide some analysis and clarity on those topics is Melanie Lauridsen, vice president–Tax Policy & Advocacy for the AICPA. Melanie, welcome back to the podcast. Melanie Lauridsen: Thank you for having me back, Neil. Amato: We talk pretty regularly, pretty much a quarterly basis. It's safe to say that even if we keep this discussion fairly narrow in scope, there is plenty to discuss, so we'll get right to it. I'm going to tease for the listeners that there will be discussion of the future of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. But first, I'd like to ask about BOI reporting, beneficial ownership information reporting, as that's been in the news lately as well. What's the latest from your lens, the advocacy lens, on the topic of FinCEN's disaster relief for BOI? Lauridsen: Good topic, Neil. Disaster relief is something, regardless of what it is, whether it's tax or BOI, it is critical that people are able to get it as quickly as possible in the largest scope possible. With BOI, we are grateful that FinCEN did offer disaster relief for victims of various hurricanes, most notably Hurricane Milton and Hurricane Helene, which created quite a bit of damage to the areas they hit. But, unfortunately, the scope of the relief, particularly for those victims of Hurricane Helene, is not as broad and as encompassing as we would have liked it to have been. They did offer a filing relief for those victims. However, they didn't extend it to entities that had been created prior to 2024 and therefore had a Jan. 1, 2025, deadline. We know that [for] some of the entities, it took everything away. It destroyed everything, and those entities have years to rebuild, and they really could use an extension. With that in mind, we are actually working with various state CPA societies, and we are also working with FinCEN in order to broaden the scope that was issued, in particular for victims of Hurricane Helene. Of course, we are working with people on the Hill because there are a lot of questions around the Corporate Transparency Act and BOI reporting to begin with, much more so also with disaster relief that they would like to see some expansion of the scope, too. Amato: Yeah, and on that topic of the reports that are in versus the reports that are expected, it's still a pretty small number. I know people like to do things at the last minute, but it's something like 6.5 million of 32 million, so still a long way to go. Lauridsen: There is an awareness issue there, and FinCEN is highly aware that there is an awareness issue because, like you said, 6.5 million filings of 32.6 [million], there's a little bit of a disconnect, especially when we're in November. So we're talking there's a month and a half to file to meet those other — what is it? — 20-plus million filings that we have to go in 1½ months? I don't think they're going to be able to meet those numbers, so, yes. But a couple of things to note about that 6.5 million. Of those 6.5 million, the majority of those filings are for entities that were created in 2024 and had that 90-day deadline, and also for the 30-day corrected and updates that are needed, and that's the 30-day deadline needed. A lot of the existing entities, those that were created prior to 2024, still need to file. Now, FinCEN realizes that their numbers are not where they want them to be, and they are now focusing on awareness and not so much on enforcement. But they are, like I said, making pushes for awareness, and they were even on our AICPA Town Hall, so you can look at the archive there because we did host Phil Lam for that. But also, the other day, I was watching national television, and I saw one of their commercials. I just about fell out of my seat. I didn't think the messaging was as clear as it could have been, but they are trying to make efforts there. Amato: Was this the coffee shop ad that you saw? Lauridsen: Yes, it is. Amato: We wrote about that earlier this year, that the outreach had begun. But still, I guess, a ways to go on that topic. Let's look ahead to one item that was popular at the tax conference. It's popular in the news headlines, and I know it's something you're paying attention to: the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It's a very open-ended question, but I'll ask it anyway: What's the future of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act? Lauridsen: Well, Neil, we would all love to know exactly what the future is. But, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it's interesting because a lot of people said prior to the election, we always knew that tax was going to be on the agenda. People were saying that, it all depended on if it was Democrat or Republican that ended up taking the presidency. Ultimately, the same topics are at stake. TCJA was always something that was going to be debated and discussed, regardless of who ended up being in office and who will be in office. The difference is we definitely know that President-elect Trump would like to see TCJA provisions become permanent. Now, the reality is all those provisions cost money, and there are real dollars associated with it. Even though we are going to be seeing in 2025 the trifecta effect, where the Republicans have swept across the board, it doesn't mean that everybody is in line with the same provisions, and therefore it doesn't mean we know exactly what will be coming. A lot of what is to come becomes an argument of how much things cost and how much things don't cost and what can be included and what can be agreed on. The debate is still very much alive as to what will happen with TCJA. I think, this is my pure speculation, I think we're going to see a hybrid of all the things that are there and not necessarily everything becoming permanent. But who's to say? Things could absolutely change. Amato: Do you want to talk about any of the particulars within that, for example, the SALT cap, estate tax policies, the future of the corporate tax rate? Lauridsen: All of those pieces are very interesting. The SALT cap, let's start with that one. The SALT cap, we have heard that they would like to eliminate the SALT cap. On a personal level, sure. I would love to see that go away. I know quite a few people feel that way about it. But the reality is that it costs money. Right now, the SALT cap at the $10,000 cap is a revenue raiser, and it helps pay for other aspects of it. If they were to eliminate it, that will cost a lot more money than what is anticipated. If we were to see a change, again, this is pure speculation on my part, obviously, we have to wait and see how things play out and what indicators we see. Right now, we haven't seen any specific indicators, but I wouldn't be surprised if the SALT cap ends up being raised slightly, not completely eliminated because, again, it costs money to eliminate it. Amato: OK, state tax policies next. Lauridsen: You said estate? Amato: Estate. Sorry, estate, not state, as opposed to state and local tax. Now, estate tax. Lauridsen: With estate tax policy, there's definitely a desire and a will to see the cap also eliminated because with TCJA, after TCJA, it will cut in half of what we're seeing. Who knows what we'll see in that play. Again, it costs money to be able to have no limit for estate tax planning purposes. I do think like the SALT cap we're going to see something come out in the middle. Maybe it'll maintain, maybe it might increase, but completely unlimited — I don't see that happening, either. Amato: Then finally, the corporate tax rate as it relates to the TCJA. Lauridsen: The corporate tax rate, that is definitely something that has been discussed. We have heard during the campaigns from President-elect Trump that he would like to lower the corporate tax rates, but please keep in mind that the current corporate tax rates in TCJA, again, they cost money. What is paying for those corporate tax rates are those small business provisions that we would like to see come back. For example, Sec. 174, the R&E expenditures. We would like to see that 100% bonus depreciation. We would like to see that come back, but tho
This podcast discussion with Michael Reese, Risk Control Consulting Director (Accountants) — CNA Insurance, centers around the importance of engagement letters for tax practitioners. Michael emphasizes the role engagement letters play in setting expectations, providing clarity and mitigating risks during engagements. He also reviews the necessity of having clear, documented agreements to minimize disputes and liability issues. What you’ll learn from this episode: The importance of engagement letters Common risks in tax engagements The role of client education and communication in managing risk How to handle quality control under deadline pressure AICPA resources Annual Tax Compliance Kit — Engagement letters, organizers, checklists and practice guides help you manage your tax season workflow. Say "I do" to engagement letters — Uncover the importance of establishing parameters of client relations and detail the scope of services to be provided. Other resources Frequently Asked Engagement Letter Questions — The Accountants Risk Control team at CNA, the endorsed underwriter of the AICPA Professional Liability Insurance Program, summarizes answers to frequently asked questions. Transcript April Walker: On today's podcast, listen to hear how you can manage your risk with engagement letters. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the AICPA’s Tax Section Odyssey Podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a Lead Manager from the Tax Section. And I'm here today with Michael Reese. Michael is a risk control director with CNA. Michael Reese: Good morning, April. April Walker: Thanks for joining me today. Here at the AICPA, we work really closely with Michael and his team on lots of things and lots of projects. But I'm especially grateful for the partnership that we have with his team for Tax engagement letter templates. Speaking of engagement letters, they are now currently available to Tax Section members. Of course, I will put a link in the show notes so that you're able to access those. April Walker: Today, we're going to talk about some common questions that we get, and I'm sure that you also get Michael on Tax Engagement Letters and just generally how to manage your risk as a tax practitioner. Welcome, Michael, and thank you for joining me. Michael Reese: Thank you. Hopefully, what I can provide will be of use to your listeners. These are questions we often get as well. I do want to confirm that, but it's a very important topic. Glad we're talking about it here today. April Walker: I'm positive that they will be helpful. Sometimes people get answers to questions that they don't really want to hear, but they're important for them to hear. Michael Reese: Exactly. April Walker: Just to start off, I'm wondering why you think it's crucial for tax practitioners to have an engagement letter in place not only for every engagement but before they actually start the work. Michael Reese: April, I think there's two primary answers to this question. First, setting expectations and then setting guardrails in case something goes wrong. From a practice standpoint, it's very important for both the practitioner and the client to know what's going to happen and what work is being done. Your engagement letter hopefully is going to clearly state, "This is what you've asked us to do. This is what we're doing. This is what we collectively need to do to get this completed. This is the info we need and when we need it," etc. If a practitioner doesn't have this, then they run the risk of a client coming back later and either adding services, sometimes without the added fee, or complaining that a service has not been performed. There needs to be that clarity upfront. For professional liability reasons, having that clarity helps limit your duty of care to the agreed-upon scope. This way, in the event of a dispute, the practitioner has a strong argument for avoiding liability related to items for which they had no responsibility. That leads me to the second answer involving guardrails. Ideally, the engagement letter is going to set out the agreed-upon rules if something goes wrong. Dispute resolution is not really something CPAs focus on until they are in the middle of one, but we routinely talk to tax practitioners who are in the middle of an engagement with a problem and they don't have the signed letter to fall back on. If that letter is in place before the work starts, you now have options if something goes wrong, whereas without the letter, you don't. Now, I'm not ignoring the fact that getting a signed letter back can be a challenge, especially for 1040 clients. But I know there are practitioners out there that have a strict process. No letter, no work. Remember, the onus is on the client because they do need your help. Otherwise, they aren't showing up to your office. If they want the service, then they need to work with you. April, I would say put it this way. When I go to get work done on my car, even for an oil change, they don't even take my keys until I've signed a piece of paper that says I agree to the service and the terms of service. If I ignore that paper, disappear for some period of time, and then come back like some tax clients, when I come back, my car is still how I left it unrepaired, and I can't now complain that I'm going to be late for work because my car isn't fixed. I can, but I don't know how far it's going to get me. I really would like to think that tax professionals should have no trouble with a similar approach. April Walker: That's a great analogy. That's where we'll talk about this. Mike, you and I have both been in practice before. And sometimes we struggle with the way we've always done things, in a certain way, but it might not be the way the rest of the world operates. If we're thinking about this in a way of managing your risk, this is definitely a best practice. Michael Reese: Yeah, I would agree. April Walker: Great. Let's talk about some common risks that tax practitioners face during engagement. You've got your engagement letter, for sure. Check one. We are in the engagement. How might having that engagement letter help mitigate some of the risks that can happen as things are going on? Michael Reese: I'll give you four. We can talk about these. But the first one and we did touch on it before in the prior question, there's risk when there's no alignment on what the client needs. The client may not understand truly what they need to comply. They just know they need to file a return. Once you have the discussion with your client and identify the extent of the need, that engagement letter is going to provide the clarity that we spoke of, so both you and the client understand - this is what we're doing. Two, once you know what you're doing, there's still a risk that the client doesn't know what's included. Let me give you an example. When I practiced, I had a 1040 business owner client that felt they were paying too much in estimated taxes using the 110% safe harbor method. We ended up doing actual method. They didn't realize that meant doing quarterly drafts for the business and then calculating actual tax in multiple draft 1040s to figure out how much they owed each quarter. Added a lot of time, added a lot of fees. The client thought it was, "Part of the return." But at the time, the engagement letter didn't really break down for the client what was part of the return and what was not. That subsequent argument about fees could all have been avoided. Three, there is a small risk someone may use the work for a purpose other than what was originally intended and we don't see this too often in tax. It's more of an attest item, but sometimes we do see it in tax. Just think of how often clients ask for comfort letters and you'll see where I'm going with this. Once you give them the deliverable, you do lose a bit of control as to what they might do with it. Your engagement letter can anticipate this risk by saying, "We're doing this X." Tax return, consulting project, whatever. "We're doing this X for this specific reason. If you use it for some other reason, that risk and or loss is on you." I helped you with your tax return so that you can file your taxes and not have the IRS sending you nosy letters. If you gave that return to someone else for some other reasons, you've been warned, that's between you and that other person. But if your engagement letter doesn't close that door, you could have an issue. Fourth, strangely enough, not every client realizes that if you don't file and pay your taxes on time, there's some downside associated with that. A lot of professional liability claims fall into the bucket of, "You didn't tell me," regardless of merit. At minimum, your engagement letter can put the client on notice. "Hey, if you don't do this or you don't take your responsibilities seriously, bad things can happen." April Walker: I think those are all great examples. I'm specifically thinking about and we may touch on it a little bit later talking about some of the planning that might be around some of the upcoming TCJA sunset items and work you're going to be doing around that. I like your example and that absolutely has happened to me before about the estimated tax payments. The client didn't really understand, "Hey, cash out is also the fees you pay to me." I think that's a interesting one. But you want to make sure that you're not leaving on the table the assumption that any planning and projection work that you might be doing related to these consulting projects or whatever around TCJA or whatever it might be is specifically either included in the engagement letter or you have a separate engagement letter that talks about that. Michael Reese: I think you used a very important term when you say assumption. I think a lot of times CPAs are very in tune with the work and what needs to be done and there's an as
The AICPA & CIMA National Tax Conference will take place on November 11 and 12 in Washington, DC. Join Brandon Lagarde, Tax Partner at EisnerAmper, and April Walker, Lead Manager on AICPA & CIMA’s Tax Practice & Ethics team, to learn more about what to expect from the upcoming conference. Conference sessions will feature topics such as: The impact of election results on tax legislation: Investigate the potential legislative outlook based on the recent election results and how it might affect tax policies. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) expiring provisions: Provisions of the TCJA are scheduled to sunset at the end of 2025; learn more about how to prepare and explore planning opportunities. Practical tax strategies: Sessions at the conference will cover various tax tactics, including gifting and income tax planning strategies, for clients who are not currently subject to estate tax. Ethical dilemmas in tax practice: A session will discuss common ethical dilemmas faced by tax practitioners and provide insights on how to handle them. The future of tax practice: Investigate the importance of transforming tax practices with year-round advisory services and how to implement these changes in a tax firm. AICPA resources AICPA & CIMA National Tax Conference — For tax practitioners, there’s no better place to get immersed in current events than the AICPA & CIMA National Tax Conference; in-person and virtual options are available. Reimagining your tax practice — Join us for free upcoming live roundtable sessions to tackle today’s top practice management issues with insights and tips from pioneers in the tax community. TCJA expiring provisions — This detailed, downloadable resource offers an in-depth look at the expiring provisions under the TCJA and other recent legislation. It categorizes changes across individual tax, estate and gift tax and business tax provisions, organized by year of expiration. Transcript Neil Amato: Welcome back to the Journal of Accountancy podcast. This is Neil Amato with the JofA. I'm excited to be joined for today's episode by two top flight tax experts in this special collaboration episode with the Tax Section Odyssey podcast with our guests, we're discussing the AICPA & CIMA National Tax Conference which begins November 11th in Washington. Those guests, April Walker, lead manager with the tax practice and ethics team and host of the aforementioned Tax Section Odyssey. Also Brandon Lagarde, tax partner at EisnerAmper and Chair of the Tax Conference Planning Committee. We have a lot to get to. We're excited to have you on. First, a quick welcome, April and Brandon, thanks for being repeat guests on the JofA podcasts. April Walker: Thanks so much for having me Neil. I'm excited to be here. Brandon Lagarde: It's very exciting to be here Neil. Thank you for having me. Neil Amato: Yeah, we're glad to have you both on as I said, the Tax Conference is November 11th, less than a week after election day. Brandon for you first, tell me what you're looking forward to about this event which is at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington? Brandon Lagarde: Yeah. I'm looking forward to just go into DC. It's going to be a week after the election, hoping that we know who the president will be and what the makeup of Congress will be at that time. Again, it's going to be a great atmosphere, a great opportunity to go to the nation's capital, to hear from some of the best tax minds out there. Neil Amato: April, I know you're a repeat attendee at that conference. You're also running sessions, recording podcasts, taking part in panels. What do you look forward to from the event? April Walker: It's always a busy conference for me and I love being in DC and it's very exciting for me to be there, like Brandon said right after the election. Speaking of that, really what I'm looking forward to most is hearing more about what the potential legislation outlook could look like based on those results, based on those election results. I think we'll hear more about we've talked a lot about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the TCJA, that it potential expiration, what that means. We'll really be able to dig into that at the conference. I'm excited about that. Neil Amato: It's almost like we planned this. My next thing was going to be the TCJA. Some of the provisions of that Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, are scheduled to sunset at the end of 2025. Clearly, there is a lot of uncertainty about the provisions right now as we record and the first part of October. But I imagine that topic is going to be a popular one at the conference. Brandon, What do you think? Brandon Lagarde: Yes, absolutely and that's why, again, being there at the heart of it all after the election and getting to hear from presenters and speakers about just what the future holds for tax professionals, end of 2024 is going to be really important for us. 2025 is going to be incredibly important for tax practitioners to understand and remind ourselves of here are all these provisions that we've been dealing with for the last seven years that are going to expire. What's going to happen? Where are we going to be? A lot of planning opportunities, lot of reason to get in front of clients to learn about what we have in the horizon. Again, that's why this conference, particularly just the time of the year. It is in the election cycle, and heading into 2025, 2026. It's probably the most important conference that's ever taken place. This is just a really important time for us to get together and to really try to figure out what's going to happen. Of course, we're not going to know exactly at that time, but at least start to have a better understanding, a clear picture of what we can expect and what should we be talking to clients heading into 2025? What are some things that need to be doing? Because you can't just turn on the switch in November of 2025 and start to really think about this. Right now is really the time to get ahead of it and remind ourselves what provisions are expiring? What do we need to start thinking about planning opportunities to get ahead of it? That's what's at stake at this time. April Walker: I love Brandon that you're setting the bar really high. The most important conference of all time. Here we go. Neil Amato: Yeah, that's great and because it's the most important conference of all time, we will include a link to the conference registration page with the agenda information and all of that in the show notes for this episode. One of the items on that agenda is being led by Marty Finn. He's a previous guest on the podcast. He has a session on tax and financial planning. When estate taxes don't matter. Now not to steal Marty's thunder. But can you give me a little preview of the highlights of that session? Brandon Lagarde: Certainly. We will spend a lot of time at this conference again, learning about the estate tax world and the sunset provisions and trying to navigate that. But the reality is a lot of our clients are not subject to estate tax. A lot of our clients are not having to worry about the sun setting provisions. We thought it was important to have sessions that not just focused on the top 1% of our clients, but to the 99% or to the large majority of our client base. Things like gifting strategies, what we need to be talking to clients about, who aren't necessarily dealing with the estate tax. Income tax planning strategies around that. Really just as practitioners, what do we need to be talking to clients about? We're not super focused on just estate tax and the ultra wealthy or the wealthy. That's one thing that we really try to work hard as committee in this conference is to find sessions that have a very practical application. That we can take away tips and tricks and things to our client base and back to our hometown and not just focused on the very academic discussion that a lot of tax practitioners like to have. That they can relate to. Try to have sessions that are very practical in nature and the Marty session is definitely one of those. He's going to do a great job giving some really good tips and tricks to people to bring home. Neil Amato: I liked the practical part you mentioned, and that leads me into another session that I want to ask you about. This is one that April is taking part in with Dan Moore and Mark Gallegos.The title of the session is Tax Practice makeover, transforming with year-round advisory services. Tell me some more about that session. April Walker: Yeah. I'm really excited about that session. A lot of what I do here at the AICPA is try to help practitioners think about the future, the future of Tax Practice, the future of what a firm could look like. So we had this idea to do like a makeover of a practice. We're going to talk about some of the different aspects of a practice that you could make over- billing, client focus. One of those is about adding advisory services. We'll talk more about that. So come and join us and learn how you could do a makeover of your practice. Neil Amato: That's great. Now another session with an intriguing title, this is you, Brandon and you April, test your tax ethics IQ. Now one that sounds like one that people have to do some homework on or some pre-reading, maybe I don't know, but tell us about that session. What's a flavor of it that you can tell attendees about now? Brandon Lagarde: We're going to try have fun with this session. Play some games that have come up with like a quiz atmosphere. I think April going to try bring a buzzer for people to buzz in and answer our questions. But really focus on ethical dilemmas. We're faced with ethical dilemmas daily, with clients who are either trying to push the boundaries a little bit or just get into some situations where they find themselves in a bad place. We're constantly being asked to address the situation with our client base. Whether you need amended return for XYZ reason. Can you tak
This podcast conversation with digital asset specialist Kirk Phillips, CPA, CMA, CFE & CPB, Managing Director — Global Crypto Advisors, focuses on demystifying IRS Rev. Proc. 2024-28, which provides guidance on transitioning from universal basis tracking for holders of digital assets and a safe harbor deadline of Jan. 1, 2025, to determine how to allocate any unused basis in digital assets. Phillips shares recommendations for tax practitioners around communicating with clients and the need for careful planning and documentation to meet the safe harbor provisions. What you’ll learn from this episode: Understand more about Rev. Proc. 2024-28 and what it means for holders of digital assets. Hear about the safe harbor provisions provided in the revenue procedure. Learn the importance of the Jan. 1, 2025, deadline for making a reasonable allocation of unused basis. Find out about the challenges of documenting and reconciling cost basis related to digital assets. How to communicate and prepare individuals and businesses for the upcoming changes related to reporting of digital asset transactions. AICPA resources Digital assets and virtual currency tax guidance and resources — Sharpen your tax knowledge on digital asset and understand the tax complexities and strategies involved with virtual currency and cryptocurrency. AICPA advocacy resources AICPA makes recommendations for digital asset transactions regulations, March 7, 2024 Other resources Rev. Proc. 2024-28 — Guidance to allocate basis in digital assets to wallets or accounts as of January 1, 2025 Final Regulations 2024-07-09 — Gross proceeds and basis reporting by brokers and determination of amount realized and basis for digital asset transactions Transcript April Walker: Hello everyone, and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the tax section, and I'm here today with Kirk Phillips. Kirk is a CPA and it has a lot of other designations behind his name. But he's also more importantly for today's discussion, a specialist in the world of digital assets and crypto. [He's] been in it for a long time. Our goal today, Kirk, is to demystify some of this latest guidance that we've gotten from the IRS. We're definitely not going to be able to demystify all of it in the time we're just going to spend today. But there are some important deadline related items, so we want to make sure we're covering those. Kirk is on the AICPA's Digital Asset Tax Task Force. And for the past few months, we've actually been meeting weekly, which is unusual for a task force. Because really we've been discussing one thing, Revenue Procedure 2024-28. What it actually said, what it meant. Just really delving into that, the details of all of that. That's going to be the topic of what we're going to talk about today. What that means for tax practitioners and holders of digital assets. Especially like I said, there are deadlines around this safe harbor. Kirk, to start off. Welcome. Let's talk about I mentioned the deadline and let's talk about the significance of that January 1, 2025 deadline for making that reasonable allocation of unused basis. That's what the Rev Proc says. Talk to us a little bit about what that means, what you're thinking about, what practitioners should be doing now to prepare for that date. Kirk Phillips: Sure. Thank you so much April for having me on the podcast. I love talking digital assets and crypto, whether it's tax-related or otherwise. I'm excited to help demystify this Rev Proc. One of the key things here is that and why this is so important is we both have a short timeline. Because we're already nearing the last quarter of the year 2024. It's also very challenging - it's a onetime exercise that we have to go through and on a short timeline. That's why this is critical and that's why we're here today to talk about that. One of the key things here is that prior to this Rev Proc that the taxpayers would do their accounting for the digital asset transactions, which would be their trading or their sales, and it could be other related transactions as well. But basically they would do all the accounting on a universal basis. The question is, what does universal basis mean? Universal basis means that whether you have one wallet or one exchange account or you've got 37 wallets and six exchange accounts or even something more crazy than that, you would for the most part, more than 99% of the time people would use specialized tax software because that's really the only way to get the job done. You would connect all those things and or import your transactions into the software and it would essentially co-mingle all those transactions. I like to say as if it was one wallet or as if it was a single exchange. But it's not simply for the tracking purposes, all the transactions are simply dumped together and you perform one set of accounting. That's what the universal [method] is. Now, you can no longer use universal. You have to do a wallet by wallet, account by account basis. Which means that if you, again using those same numbers I did in my example there. If you had 37 wallets, that means you essentially have to do 37 different sets of accounting for those. I think that without knowing even anything more about it, an accountant hearing that would say, "Wow," immediately that sounds like that could be challenging, that could be a lot more work, and so on. There could be issues around that. And all those things are true. Because of this short timeline between now and the end of 2024 and essentially we're talking here at the end of September, so we got one-quarter left to do this. The important thing here is if you have any channels to communicate with your clients, the first thing to do would be to communicate with them and let them know, "Hey, there's this Rev Proc 2024-28." Maybe, perhaps even provided a link if you want to, and or read that yourself in detail at least once. But there's a lot of other things that you can lean on in AICPA guidance, of course. But just to send that out, in other words, you don't have to know it in detail before communicating. You should start the process communicating right now to say, "Hey, there's a lot to unpack here. I'm just letting you know there's going to be more that's coming. Be on the lookout. We're going to do a series of blogs on this or whatever it is you do or a newsletter, segments, and things like that. I think that's probably the number one thing to start off with is start the communication now, because this is not a one-shot communication thing. This is a series of communications that you're going to need to do. Whether you're just providing value to non-clients or you're working with current clients, you're going to need them to be thinking in steps and increments along the way. April Walker: Yeah. That's a lot of what we've been talking about over the past couple of months. Who this actually applies to you and who needs to really take notice of this? I think that's a great suggestion. Our listeners might be thinking, "Hey, I didn't know that we are not allowed to use universal method of basis allocation anymore. Did that come from the revenue procedure or where did that come from?" Kirk Phillips: Well, that actually came from the digital asset broker regulations. But then what happened is in the process of those becoming final and the fact that universal [tracking] comes to an end. And we have to do the wallet by wallet approach. What arises from that is a onetime exercise of how do we get from one thing to the other thing? How do we get from point A to point B? April Walker: The Sec. 6045 regs, which are long and complicated. Again, like Kirk said, we'll continue to create resources around all of this information because it's a lot to unpack. In the revenue procedure, it talks about a safe harbor. As we're transitioning between universal and wallet by wallet, the procedure provides a safe harbor. Let's talk about what are the key criteria that qualify you for using that safe harbor and give some of the requirements for it and so talk a little bit about that. Kirk Phillips: Sure. That's one of the big things here is what are those key criteria for the safe harbor? Of course, another thing is we're wondering what is it actually a safe harbor from? There's going to be more to come on that. Because that's actually not super clear and usually that is when it comes to safe harbor. The critical things here are that you have two methods that you can follow in this universal transition process. From universal cost basis tracking. In that transition process you can use a specific units method or you can use a global allocation method. In either case, you need to do some work before the end of the year arrives at 12-31-24, or before January the 1st, whichever way you want to say that. Those two methods are two distinct ways of doing it. You might say that the global allocation method is more straightforward and less work or less complicated. But let's just unpack those briefly. There's more to dig into on these, but this is a brief touchpoint. Let's start with global allocation. Global allocation, I like to think of it as more like a recipe. There's more than one way to get the "cake baked". Because you've got your grandmother's recipe and you've got your own style and you've got things like that and things in the cookbook. So you can arrive at a different cake, but if you follow the recipe, you're going to get the same cake. Basically, another way I like to say it too, is if you come up with a global allocation, which is simply saying, "You know, what I want to do is I want to allocate my Ethereum, my ether. And I want to take some low-cost basis. Maybe you could say, "I want to use my oldest cost basis and I want to apply it to my oldest wallets." For Bitcoin, I had only two Bi
In this episode David Snider, Founder and CEO — Harness Wealth, discusses the transformative role of technology in tax practices, exploring how tools like practice management software can enhance client relationships and streamline operations. David shares insights on what he sees as three phases of technology adoption in the tax industry and offers practical advice for firms looking to advance their tech capabilities. Tune in to learn how embracing technology can lead to a more efficient, client-focused tax practice. What you’ll learn from this episode: What David thinks are the three phases of a firm’s technology journey. How leveraging technology can streamline tax practice management. How practice management software can enhance efficiency and client experience. Why regularly communicating with clients can strengthen relationships. The importance of allocating time and resources to implement new technologies. AICPA resources Adding AI into your tax practice — Artificial intelligence (AI) is certainly a hot topic of late. Listen to hear Jason Staats and Ashley Francis talk about the latest information in this area and where you should move forward and where you should proceed cautiously in this Reimagining Your Tax Practice archived session. Transitioning to a tax-focused CPA financial planner — Tax return compliance is continuing to become more of a commodity. Your clients see you as their trusted adviser and ask about a range of topics that affect their financial well-being. In this Reimagining Your Tax Practice archived session, learn more about practitioners who offer financial planning services and how that has impacted their practices. Transforming Your Business Model…Technology — The Private Companies Practice Section (PCPS) is developing tools around technology designed to help firms not only identify elements of their current business model that may be holding them back but also offering solutions to help them adapt in this changing environment. Upcoming event Tech stack wars in 2024 — With the amount of technology products out in the market, how do they perform in reality? Join our next tech stack wars challenge on Oct. 16, 2024, to hear about the latest in technology for tax practices. Other resources Harness Wealth — Learn more about how Harness Wealth strives to provide the next generation of builders confidence in the path to their best financial future. Transcript April Walker: On today's podcast, listen to hear more about leaning into technology for your tax practice. Hi everyone and welcome to the AICPA Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the Tax Section and I'm here today with a repeat guest. His name is David Snider. He's the Founder and CEO of Harness Tax. Welcome back, David. David Snider: It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you April. April Walker: David, I'd love for you to start. Tell us a little bit about yourself and tell us a little bit about Harness Tax and where you see yourself in this world of tax. David Snider: Thank you for having me. Yes, so Harness has a platform for routine tax advisors that are looking to make their relationship with their clients more seamless and insightful. What that really means is a practice management solution that's tied into a much broader set of offerings. That includes business development to help advisors with leads, a concierge team to help with support, as well as a broader network of resources to help guide advisors and give them the resources of bigger firms. April Walker: Wonderful. I feel since we talked in Spring of 2022, if it's possible, I feel like the importance of technology is even more important. Maybe that's just me being dramatic, but let's start off just by pretty broad question like, how do you see technology transforming the way tax advisors interact with their clients? David Snider: Absolutely. I think about it being in the second of three inevitable phases. I think the first was the first stage, which is very typical across industries. My background was spending, now 12 years, building tech enabled services, software solutions, first at Compass, a real estate advisory firm, and now at Harness. Before that in the middle, spent a lot of time at Bain Capital looking at different disruptive technologies. And so that first phase that we went through, very similar to a lot of industries, adoption of email, adoption of technologies that clients can actually submit core documents digitally and not just in paper. The ability with the early software to actually complete and file electronically. That really is table stakes. If you look at the data, it's 99% of advisors have an Efin, etc. The second phase that we're really still in the early to mid innings of is the software collaboration phase. What that looks like is work-flow automation, ways of interacting with clients to create leverage for advisors and scale. It's not just, hey, I typed an email, send it to one, or I create an engagement letter sent to one. It's using the efficiencies of technology that can, at the vanguard be AI, but really doesn't need to be. In the vast majority of cases, it's just having good practice management software to create efficiencies for the advisor that end up, ironically, even though you have to spend less time, creating a better client experience and one that's more customized to the individual. It gives them more visibility into what's going on, what's coming next. The third phase, which I think only a handful of firms are really investing in, fully tapping into, which is totally fine. I don't think the client expectation is there, is around customized insights. How do you not just deliver an efficient workflow? But how do you, at the outset of a tax season, demonstrate to your client that you already know some stuff about them from prior years, here's why we really need just to tweak that. Showing your work. Here is all the different analysis that we ran in the completion of your return or the discussions that we had and at the end of the process, Yes, here's a completed tax document or analysis that you requested, but also here's what it means. I think that ability to both give insights to people and leave clients like they actually understand tax, the tax process, the work that you did, is going to create massive benefits in terms of client's willingness to pay, their retention, their happiness, etc. Very few firms are at a Phase 3 in our opinion. You don't need to be concerned if you're not. Because there are a few, if any are. But certainly making sure that you've put in place or have the opportunities to go into next tax season and really nail Phase 2. I think will put advisors in a great place to really capture what is happening on the vanguard in Phase 3. April Walker: We definitely hear from people and when I'm out talking to firms, people who are definitely still in that Phase 1. Where they transferred to Cloud. That seemed like a huge deal and leaning into some technology, but maybe taking that next step into two, even is difficult. Do you have any advice or thoughts on that? Because everyone is so busy and it's hard to figure out, especially if you're really small, it's hard to figure out how to take that time and really invest in trying to get to that next step. Any ideas or suggestions there? David Snider: I think the good news is there are a lot of very good practice management software that did not exist or did not have the robustness that they do today, five years ago. One of the things to consider in evaluating the different choices is, ensuring that you price in the value of your time as a practice leader. In that there is a learning curve on anything, no matter how good the technology is. There are some that I think are much cheaper and may have the technologies you want to check the box on. But I think really understanding what is the on-boarding team look like? What does the client success infrastructure of that solution look like? Who's going to make it as easy as possible to set you and in many cases your team up to use it successfully? And to answer issues that will inevitably arise from any change. I think we have over-invested in those resources, because we know there's a lot of change and fully transitioning the way that you think about practice management, some of the potential third-party software you can plug in, etc. That's important. I think whatever approach that you take, whether it's working with Harness or a whole host of other solutions that are out there that are very good. I think just making sure that you understand, hey, what are the functionality each have, what's going to be accretive to the way that you want to work and your staff and perhaps your clients. But also what's the process going to be to fully utilize and take advantage of that. April Walker: Those are some good thoughts. Just maybe if we can talk about a few examples of ways that firms can use practice management tools to really help them. Because this is really what it's about. It's about not having to have an Excel spreadsheet of clients and that's all you have. I'm not saying that's what our firms have. I'm just saying, I was in practice for some time and I remember that. What are some ways you can use tools to really advance your practice? David Snider: I think there's both external components. How do you enhance the way that your clients perceive their process and there are internal things. How do you ensure that you don't miss a filing? The reason that advisors have Excel is just a mechanism to ensure that they do the work for their clients that the clients expect. I think on the external side, the more frequently you're interacting with clients around the tax process, generally the better, not in an annoying way, but I think tax is something clients generally don't want to think about, but defin
This Tax Section Odyssey podcast episode takes a deeper dive into the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) initiative on Base Erosion Profit Sharing (BEPS) 2.0 which sets to reform the internation tax system with Pillar 1 and 2 tax regimes. In addition to the complexity of such international regulations, the political landscape for U.S. implementation is uncertain, and potential action is needed from Congress. Cory Perry, Principal, National Tax — Grant Thorton Advisors, and Vice Chair of the AICPA’s International Technical Resource Panel (TRP), highlights that while many U.S. companies may not face larger tax bills if these regimes are adopted in the U.S., the administrative and compliance challenges are significant. The AICPA has submitted comment letters to the OECD, Treasury, and the IRS, focusing on simplification and clarification of rules. AICPA resources OECD BEPS 2.0 - Pillar One and Pillar Two — The OECD BEPS 2.0 sets out to provide a tax reform framework allowing for more transparency in the global tax environment. What you need to know about BEPS 2.0: Pillar One and Pillar Two | Tax Section Odyssey — The OECD BEPS 2.0 project is an international effort to reform the international tax system that addresses transfer pricing, profit allocation and tax avoidance. Advocacy Comments to Treasury on tax issues of OECD Pillar Two, Feb. 14, 2024 Comments to Treasury on Amount B of OECD Pillar One, Dec. 12, 2023 Other resources OECD BEPS — Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Sharing Transcript April Walker: Hello everyone and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the tax section and I'm here today with my colleagues Reema Patel and Lauren Pfingstag. They are colleagues here with me at the AICPA. They are international experts and legislative experts. We'll get into more of that as we're discussing. I'm also delighted to have with me Cory Perry. Cory is a principal with Grant Thornton Advisors and their national tax office. He's also, and more importantly for our discussion today but probably not more importantly for his day-to-day, the Vice Chair of the AICPA's International Tax Resource panel and Chair of the OECD taskforce. That's what we're going to be talking about today. If you are a follower and listener of this podcast, you might recall a few episodes ago we did a higher-level background on OECD's tax regimes — Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 — just laying the groundwork. Today we're going to talk more about why we think you need to be familiar with these concepts. Even though for today they may not be relevant for any of your current clients. We're also going to delve into the political landscape and where we are today and what that could mean for the US tax system related to international tax legislation. Reema, I'm going to let you take it away for the next little bit. Reema Patel: Thanks, April, Cory, welcome. I know a lot of us have been hearing about the OECD Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 for awhile now. Many countries have also implemented it this year and some are implementing it next year. I guess the most basic question we can start with is, who should care and pay attention to this? Cory Perry: Absolutely. It's a wide impact in tax, but it only impacts the largest of the large companies. I would say it has a high threshold, 750 million of consolidated revenue and two of the four preceding years and you have to be taxed, want more than one jurisdiction. We are talking about very large companies but these days, even middle market companies are easily starting to bump up against that threshold. We're not just talking about the Fortune 100. We're talking about middle market and above companies that should care and think about these rules. Obviously accountants that serve those types of companies, those larger companies. I think many of those companies themselves not even be fully aware that they're subject to these rules or may not have fully thought through how they're going to comply. The other thing I would add, there is a bit of a misconception out there that this is a corporate multinational problem. Although that is primarily where it is, it also impacts pass-throughs, partnerships and S corps that are parents within these groups can be equally subject to these rules. Rules don't always necessarily apply at that level, but they are applied to the group as a whole. I know there's a number of practitioners out there that have clients that have grown over time and might have reached this level. It's by no means going to be the majority, certainly going to be a large minority, but I suspect many will have clients out there that might be impacted or if you're in-house at your company might be impacted. Reema Patel: Like you said, it is for large corporations currently with consolidated revenues at 750 million euros and more. What are you seeing with the clients right now? Any challenges that they're being faced by technology? Gathering data points? I know you have to comply with many foreign jurisdictions as well as the US. Can you speak a little bit to the challenges that you're seeing just as a practitioner as well as from a client perspective as well for them. Cory Perry: Absolutely. Companies are really still trying to get their hands around this as are practitioners. Even the rules aren't fully baked. The OECD is still releasing new guidance every couple of months on quite a frequent cadence. So the rules continue to evolve and how companies are approaching it continue to evolve as well. As far as challenges, interestingly enough, from what we're seeing, many companies are not actually seeing larger tax bills. You'd think tax legislation, tax change like this is going to hit the bottom line and there are certainly companies out there with lower/no taxed pockets of income or that are in low-tax jurisdictions. But what I've found is the vast majority, particularly of middle market companies, are generally not in many of these low-tax jurisdictions, if at all. They are in higher tax jurisdictions, think of the US's top five trading partners- for example, Canada, Mexico, China, and Japan and the UK all have rates above or even some cases well above 15%. The idea is to reach a minimum level of 15% and once you're above that, there may not be additional top-up tax to be paid. It may not be necessarily for all taxpayers an item that's going to really be a cash tax impact. But where we're really seeing the challenge is more on the administrative and compliance side to this. It is a very significant undertaking to comply with these rules. It's just a massive effort that's required in order to get your hands around what needs to be done, get your systems updated so that you can comply and collect the information or the data at the right level, clean the data, so on and so forth. There was a lot of complex calculations that need to be done. In some cases there may be even third or four sets of books that need to be kept that you may not have been keeping our tracking in the past. The rule started out with a simple premise. It was going to be a book tax based on books. That sounds simple. But it quickly evolved into a very complex tax regimes that sits on top of all the other global tax regimes that are already in place. If it wasn't complicated enough before, now we have another layer over the top making it quite complex. That's certainly been the biggest challenge is how do you deal with all of this change and international tax complexity when you're operating across borders. Reema Patel: Definitely, I guess it just keeps piling all the time. Three sets of books, four sets of books. We don't even have CAMTI [rules] out yet. Speaking of which currently, it looks like, as we mentioned it's for large corporations, but what do smaller firms and CPAs in the industry need to know? I'm sure they're not getting into the nitty-gritty details of how to calculate pillar two taxes and all the top up taxes on different regimes. But we don't know if the threshold does get lowered, more companies will get pulled in, possibly. What should they know? How can they keep up with and at least be aware that it's out there? Cory Perry: I think at this point I would say it's more of a client service point. It's being aware of the potential risks in an area where your client might be subject to these rules. I don't expect many firms will have many clients that are going to be impacted. In fact, many firms might not have any clients that are impacted. But it's making that identification and helping those clients understand whether they are impacted. It is getting a lot of press and it's in the Wall Street Journal, it's on NPR in the morning, it's certainly in the mainstream news. Clients are interested in asking questions about it. It's understanding that it's out there, what it is and who it applies to. I think that's the most important part, I don't expect most smaller firms will scale up or hire experts in this area necessarily. But I think helping those clients with the identification - that's going to be greatly appreciated. You're highlighting a risk area for them that they might not have previously considered. Then helping them find a resource that can assist with this somewhat unique area of tax. Whether that'd be another CPA firm in the US or more commonly, sometimes these are non-US firms because right now, as we'll talk about later, the US is not implemented these rules that could certainly assist. Again, flagging these as issues, being aware of those thresholds and who it might apply to is probably the area I would focus right now and making sure that your base has been reviewed. And they understand whether they're going to be in or out these rules. Reema Patel: Definitely. I guess just building on what you said. It's been in the news everywhere. We've also hear
In this joint episode, Neil Amato, host of the Journal of Accountancy podcast and Melanie Lauridsen, VP of AICPA Tax Policy and Advocacy discuss two recent Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned a 40-year-old precedent of deference referred to as the Chevron doctrine, affecting future rulemaking by eliminating the need for judges to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. In Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court ruled to alter the statute of limitations for challenging regulations, starting the clock when a plaintiff is injured rather than when the regulation is enforced. These decisions introduce significant uncertainty for the accounting profession, particularly regarding IRS regulations and long-standing rules and emphasize the need for CPAs to stay informed and adaptable as the implications of these rulings unfold. AICPA Resources Melancon: Supreme Court decisions are ‘big deal’ for tax pros, The Tax Adviser, Aug. 1, 2024 Supreme Court overrules 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, The Tax Adviser, June 28, 2024 Supreme Court decision on Chevron doctrine will affect tax pros, Journal of Accountancy, June 24, 2024 For a full transcript of the episode, see Tax Section Odyssey on the AICPA & CIMA website.
On this episode of the Tax Section Odyssey podcast episode, Dave Kirk, National Tax Partner — EY, and Chair of the AICPA’s Pass-through Entity Tax Task Force, discusses the complexities surrounding state tax refunds related to the pass-through entity tax (PTET) and delves into the challenges posed by the lack of IRS guidance, the application of the tax benefit rule and varying state regulations. Dave emphasizes the importance of consistency in handling these refunds and advises practitioners to involve taxpayers in decision-making due to the inherent uncertainties and risks. AICPA resources FAQ on the Federal Taxation of State Income Tax Refunds for PTET Payments — FAQ guidance on the federal taxation of state income tax refunds for PTET payments. AICPA list of taxpayer and practitioner considerations for whether to elect into a state pass-through entity (PTE) tax — Various issues should be considered when deciding whether a taxpayer can, and should, elect into a state PTE tax. Pass-through Entity (PTE) Taxes States’ Legislation and Tax Authorities’ Information and Guidance — A state-by-state PTE matrix tracking and linking to legislative updates, guidance, as well as other relevant information. State and Local Tax (SALT) Roadmap and Resource Center — Browse the reference library for the latest guidance and tools to address your state and local tax needs including tax rates, due dates, nexus, PTE tax and more. Transcript April Walker: On today's podcast, listen to learn more about how to handle refunds related to the pass-through entity tax. Hello everyone and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a Lead Manager from the Tax Section and I'm here today with a repeat guest, Dave Kirk. Dave's with National Tax at EY. He is the knower of a lot of things, but specifically today we're going to talk about PTET. Dave, let's start off with, I think when we chatted before, we talked about pass-through entity tax fun with that, we're delving into a very specific issue related to it. Let's first talk about the challenges. There are so many challenges around this, the lack of guidance around PTET, but today we're going to talk about refunds and there isn't guidance really. How has that impacted our practitioners? Dave Kirk: First of all, thanks for having me again. Being the leader of the PTET Task Force for the AICPA and having to deal with this for E&Y nationally, I've probably spent 500 hours of my life on this that I'm not getting back. It's just that each state is different. You could probably group states together. It usually requires a case-by-case analysis on how the deduction was taken, when the deduction was taken, and how much money the taxpayer is getting back. The [IRS] Notice 2020-75 only talked about taking the deduction. There was not one word in that notice talking about refunds. You're right, April, there is no formal guidance from the IRS on PTET refunds. But this is also not the first time in US history where a state government has given money back to a taxpayer. Our federal tax system, as we currently know, it has only been around for 110 years or so. We do have guidance scattered throughout that last century of payments of taxes, deductions for taxes and recoveries. You might call it the common law of refunds that we would use in the absence of anything specific coming out of the government on how to deal with this. Walker: Tax benefit rule, right? It's been around for a little bit. Kirk: Yeah. There's two aspects of the tax benefit rule. There's the exclusionary aspect of it, and that's been codified about 40 years ago into Sec. 111 of the code. Then there's also the inclusionary aspect which kind of says, hey, you got a benefit for a payment back in a prior year and you have got that payment returned. That should be something, that should be Sec. 61, gross income. But where the complexity arises is, first of all, you can tell whether something is taxable or not taxable based on whether you got a benefit for it in a prior year. Okay, great. That's relatively straightforward, and I say relative with some emphasis there. But then you'd go down a very slippery slope really quick once you do determine that a PTET refund is taxable, because then you have to ask yourself, what characteristics does that taxable refund have? That is a morass that I don't think that the government ever really envisioned. I'm not envisioning any sort of guidance coming out of the government within the next 12 months on this. Walker: The last count, we have 50 states. Like you said, you can group them maybe, but each state was allowed with the IRS notice to develop their own regime which causes all kinds of fun. Which again, we won't get into specifically today. But like you said, it seems like we could the tax benefit rule and thoughts around that, or how we are going to try to provide some assistance to you with a resource that's been developed. You mentioned that you are the Chair of the AICPA Task Force for PTET. We thank you so much for all the things you do for the AICPA. In doing that, you guys have developed some really helpful FAQs around different nuances, some examples or some summary activities that can happen. Let's provide our listeners with some of the key takeaways from those FAQs. Kirk: First, states matter, and who's getting the refund matters. If you're an S corp and let's just keep this simple that you have at dentist that owns an S corp. That S corp makes $1 million and it owes PTET at the S corp level of say, $80,000. What you do assuming cash basis and assuming you pay the exact amount of PTET on December 31st, that you can deduct it. Your K-1 line 1 should be $920,000. You are going to get a credit on your local state return of $80,000. In a vacuum, you should not have a state liability equal to or greater than or less than the $80,000. In a perfect world, that's how the system works, and that's probably about as complicated as the system was ever supposed to be in the eyes of the IRS. But you know that no one ever hits their tax liability at 100 percent. You might hit by 99, 98% or 101 or 102%, but you're never exactly on the dollar. First is the S-corp. If you thought that you owed $80,000 and you made that payment in December of 2023. Cash basis taxpayer, you reduced your K1 income by the $80,000. But when you get around to filing your return and you only owe $79,000, when the S-corp files the PTET return, the S-corp is overpaid $1,000. That should be income back to the S-corp because in 2023 they deducted 80,000. They only should have deducted 79k and so they get it back. In a vacuum, next year, I'm going to have $1,000 of income on my K1 that I wouldn't have otherwise had if I wasn't in this PTE regime. Simple. Now if I deducted it on the front page of the return because I'm just offsetting my dental practice income or whatever it is, that PTET payment is no different than rents or salaries or insurance or whatever it is. Ok fine. So when I pick it up, that $1,000 refund in the next year, that should also be similar to my dental practice income, it's simply reversing a deduction. If that amount is, if I say for example, reduced passive income, maybe I'm a part owner of a dental practice that I don't practice anymore and I'm passive. Then that should come through as passive income to me because last year the deduction was probably a passive deduction. Or if I was in a business that generates QBI, qualified business income, under 199A and I deducted PTET against it last year. If it reverses, then it feels like the right answer should be it's 199A income, good QBI when I pick up my refund. But that is where the inclusionary aspect of the common law tax benefit rule would come into play. You think about it in the same way of self-employment income. Is if a partnership that you were in your subject to self-employment income on the Line 1 and your PTET deduction reduced Line 1, and that amount is refunded to the partnership, or some portion of that was refunded back to the partnership in year 2, that should probably be self-employment income. Just because the deduction reduces self-employment, you'd think that the income should increase self-employment. That's at the entity level. But then you have to think, going back to my original example, my dental practice made a million dollars and paid $80,000 of PTET. I turn around and I file my personal return and because of credits or dependent exemptions or whatever it is, I owe only $76,000 on my 1040, on state version of my 1040. I'm going to get $4,000 back from the state. Then the question is, what is that? I first start with the concept of I have $4,000 and so Section 61 says that's income, I'll live with that. Then I go to Sec. 111 and said, do I have a benefit from a prior year or do I not? If I don't have a benefit in a prior year, then this income shouldn't be income so it would probably be excluded by [Sec.] 111. But because they took the $4,000 of a deduction on the front page of the 1120-S, it reduced my K1 number. I did get a benefit even if I had an NOL that I could use and I didn't pay any tax on a prior year. It just means I used less NOL. Or that if it was passive income and I had passive losses that would be able to offset, but it would still be income to me.I still got a benefit even though I had other personal attributes that minimized that income, it would still be income. It's much harder though, to think about, look, I am getting this refund and should a state refund be QBI? Because it came from the state, it didn't come from the entity like in the first part of our discussion, should it be self-employment income? That's never been the case before that a state tax refund is self-employment income. That's just weird because itemized deductions for state taxes were never self-employment because you'd never got to deduc
If you're advising businesses on their pending ERC claims, this is a must-listen for practical guidance on navigating the process and setting the right expectations. Tune in to hear Chris Wittich and Dan Chodan, two experts immersed in Employee Retention Credit (ERC) matters for four years, discuss the IRS's upcoming actions for sorting and processing pending ERC claims by risk level. High-risk claims are likely to be denied, medium-risk claims require more detailed review, and low-risk claims will be processed starting soon. The IRS moratorium on processing claims filed after September 14, 2023, is still in place. Businesses with pending ERC claims are facing critical choices about amending income tax returns due to statute limitations. The speakers advise open communication with clients about the limited options available and the importance of understanding the ethical responsibilities as tax preparers. Based on the current backlog at the IRS for ERC claims, it is important to manage client’s expectations around the processing time as the impact of potential changes in legislation. Related resources Previous Tax Section Odyssey episodes discussing the Employee Retention Credit (ERC): · Sifting through ERC questions | Tax Section Odyssey · ERC suspended: What happens next | Tax Section Odyssey · Employee retention credit and professional responsibilities | Tax Section Odyssey ERC guidance and resources — The rules to be eligible to take this refundable payroll tax credit are complex. This AICPA resource library will help you understand both the retroactive 2020 credit and the 2021 credit. Employee Retention Credit (ERC): Fact or Fiction? — Use this guide to educate yourself and others on common misconceptions surrounding the ERC. Employee Retention Credit Decision Tree — Download the ERC decision tree to help you with various decision points when working with clients to protect yourself/your firm from significant risk. IRS resources · IR-2024-169 — IRS news release on June 20, 2024, discussing the next stage of ERC work · IR-2023-169 — IRS news release on Sept. 14, 2023, ordering the immediate stop to new ERC claim processing. · IRS ERC resource center — IRS hub for ERC information, including links to guidance, FAQs and the latest news. Transcript April Walker: On today's podcast, we're going to talk about the IRS's next steps for ERC and what that means for you. Hello everyone, and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section, Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the Tax Section, and I'm here today with two repeat guests. I'm happy to have with me, Chris Wittich. He is also known as @ravenoustiger. He is a partner at Boyum Barenscheer in Minnesota. I'm also delighted to have Dan Chodan. Dan is a tax partner at Trout CPA in Pennsylvania. Welcome to the both of you. Dan Chodan: Thanks for having us. April Walker: Chris, let's set the stage for what we know now. We're recording on July 2. [Let’s talk about] what we recently heard from the IRS late last week and what we know now about the IRS processing of claims or what they're telling us. Chris Wittich: On June 20th, IRS had a press release, and there was a lot of good information in there, the first time in quite awhile. I think we've gotten some insight as to what they're doing with these ERC claims. Right off the bat, they differentiate, and they say they're putting claims in three different buckets, and it certainly falls in the red, yellow and green. In my mind, the red category, the IRS is saying between 10-20% of the claims fall into what they describe as the highest risk group. They've said that a lot of these are going to be just straight-up denied in the coming weeks, so that red they're just seeing these claims. They're looking at them. They're saying these are not good claims at all. I would suspect those are like the employees don't exist, the businesses don't exist. They're claiming more in credits than they paid in wages, stuff like that. The IRS is saying 10-20% of all the claims they have, I would expect to get adjusted or denied entirely, and they're going to start working on that soon. The next category is the biggest category, and that's the yellow, as I would describe it. So they're saying between 60 and 70% of claims show an unacceptable level of risk. That's their term, not mine. That's two-thirds of the claims. They think the risk is so high that it's unacceptable and we're not exactly sure what factors they're using to determine that, but in their own words, they're going to be doing more thorough reviews, compliance reviews of those claims. Which again, that's the vast majority of the claims. The third category is a green zone. They're saying between 10 and 20% of the claims show a low-risk, and they don't say how they determined it, but you can reasonably assume that the claims are well within the payroll metrics. They might be particularly at-risk industries. A restaurant is likely to be a lower risk claim than a law firm. Based on industry or the size of the claim, or the number of quarters, they're saying, well, 10-20% of these look like they're going to be good claims, and so they intend to start processing them. It remains to be seen how quickly they really process the claims, but at least they're acknowledging that a portion of these are good claims and we're going to start getting them out. For those three buckets, the other caveat here is those are the claims filed prior to the moratorium. They haven't looked at the claims filed after the moratorium. So, those three buckets, those are just the claims they had prior to September 2023. April Walker: It's important to note, because we get this question quite a bit, the moratorium means they are not processing those claims. It does not mean that they're not accepting them. If you feel you have a good claim. We're going to get more into the statute discussion a little bit later. [I’m really not talking specifially] about statute on income tax return, but there's also a statute issue with the ERC claim itself. Again, we'll talk about how you're talking to your client about the [statutes], but the moratorium does not mean you cannot file, it just means they are not processing. Chris Wittich: The moratorium. I always explain it to clients, like you can send in your claim. The IRS will take your claim and put it on a shelf, and they promise that someday in the future they will start looking at the stuff on the shelf, and they haven't done that yet. If you have a good claim submit it, it goes on the shelf, the IRS will get to it down the road. April Walker: That's what the IRS told us, which is important to set the stage. Chris, based on this information from the IRS, what advice are you giving to businesses who are waiting? I guess there are the buckets – from what the IRS said. There's also buckets of where people are in this claim process. Walk us through a little bit about how you're sharing with your clients about expectations, I think is an important word. Chris Wittich: So for the people who filed prior to the moratorium, and we have lots of people we helped in the summer of 2023, very few, if any, of them have seen actual checks or credits getting processed. I think now what we can tell people is the IRS is going to start processing those. If you filed in the summer of 2023 and you're a low-risk claim, I would expect or hope to get processing in the next six months. For those people, I am saying, hey, it's been slow. It's been maybe 12 months and you haven't seen anything, but we're very hopeful that you will get processed before the end of the year. For the people who filed during the moratorium, and certainly we've had a bunch of those. Originally we didn't know how long the moratorium would last. Maybe it was only going to be a couple of months. My advice to them now is that I fully expect the moratorium to last until April of 2025. I think if you read in-between the lines of what the IRS is saying, this moratorium is going nowhere anytime soon. If you filed in October 2023, just after the moratorium, I'm telling them, hey, that claim is likely to sit on the shelf at the IRS until April 2025, then they're going to process them in the order they were received. Late 2025 or sometime in 2026 is my realistic expectation for when those claims will get processed. For the people who are questioning their claims, I would remind them that the withdrawal process is still available, it's still open. You can also just file a regular amended payroll tax return to undo or modify or payback your portion of a claim, if you think it is no longer a claim you want to make. Then for people who have potentially made bad claims, I would say the IRS has hinted at a second voluntary disclosure program (VDP). It's not out yet. When it comes out, the terms won't be as generous as the first time around, but there's a decent chance that a second voluntary disclosure is coming down the road so that's how I look at it. You got the good claims from before the moratorium, the good claims during the moratorium and then you've got withdrawal, regular amendment and voluntary disclosure as the options to deal with bad claims. Dan Chodan: If I can jump in there about the VDP. I think the comment has been that they were going to make that decision pretty soon. I think this month so that we should hear something on that. Anybody that might be thinking about doing it, I'd say at least hold off through the summer before making those decisions because it sounds very likely that they're going to come at least come out with something or say that they're not. One way or another, I think the IRS already hinted at that, but you bring up a really good point there Chris, and the IRS said it in this release. They are really concerned about lifting the moratorium and what that
In this joint episode, Neil Amato, host of the JOA podcast and Melanie Lauridsen, VP of Tax Policy and Advocacy for the AICPA discuss recent updates on three key tax topics: the Employee Retention Credit (ERC), Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting, and a member survey about IRS performance during tax season. Melanie highlights the IRS’s recent actions and proposed regulations regarding ERC, the implications of BOI reporting requirements, and the mixed feedback from AICPA members on IRS service improvements. AICPA resources AICPA Employee retention credit guidance and resources — Access resources providing the latest updates on the employee retention credit (ERC). Beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting resource center — Access resources to learn about the beneficial ownership information reporting requirement under FinCEN’s Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). Transcript Neil Amato: Welcome back to the Journal of Accountancy podcast. This is Neil Amato with the JofA. I'm joined again by Melanie Lauridsen, Vice President–Tax Policy & Advocacy for the AICPA. This is a special collaboration episode between the JofA podcast and the Tax Section Odyssey podcast. Again, welcome back. Melanie Lauridsen is our guest. She is a repeat guest. Melanie, today, as we record, it's early July, and we're going to focus in particular on three topics: The employee retention credit or ERC, beneficial ownership information reporting or BOI reporting, and then a member survey about IRS performance in tax season. It sounds like there have been more than a few updates recently on those topics. Let's dive in. ERC first: What's the latest from the IRS and what does that mean for our members? Melanie Lauridsen: Neil, thanks for having me back and yeah, there definitely have been some updates. As you know, the IRS did make an announcement around ERC and there are a couple of main points that they wanted to bring out. The first one is that the IRS made a call to action for Congress specifically asking to retroactively stop processing ERC claims. Also, the second piece of it is for Congress to extend the statute of limitations, but very narrowly defined, and it really is only for IRS assessments. In other words, if a taxpayer wants to make an amendment on their own free will, the statute of limitations will not be extended to that. But if the IRS notices something, says something, or is talking with you, and they recognize there needs to be an adjustment, then you can move forward and make that amendment. This has some implications, obviously, for our members, specifically the retroactive aspect of it. Now, they worded it differently because there's the Wyden-Smith bill, which we've talked about where that is retroactively stopping making valid ERC claims. In this case, it is that the IRS has no longer to process claims. It still has that same effect with members and does bring a little bit of nervousness to people. What that really means is that our members really need to have conversations with their clients if they have a valid ERC claim that hasn't been filed. [In] those conversations, people need to make it clear to the client that, yes, we can do the work, but there could be either the retroactively where the IRS stops processing claims, or there could be a bill that says that no longer, since a certain date, they don't have to accept claims. There's a little bit of risk associated with that. I think in the last time we spoke, we spoke about how there's an unknown around that date and therefore there's uncertainty around it, and clients need to be aware of the risks associated with that. The other important aspect of this announcement is where the IRS indicated that they have bucketed all these claims into three groups. There's the low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk. The high-risk is where there are clear signs of error within the claim. Now, couple of things I need to make sure people understand. We don't know the criteria that the IRS is using to categorize people. They are not making that public. The other thing, too, is you cannot call the IRS and ask what bucket you're in. You just won't know. They can't help you on that front. What that means is if you're low-risk, the IRS is trying to process that claim as quickly as they can so that people can get the refunds back. If you're a high risk, they're trying to process that claim also as fast as they can to be able to deny those claims. Now, if you're medium-risk, that's the bucket where you're stuck and it will be a while before they actually look at those claims. Amato: That medium-risk bucket, do you recall: What's the approximate percentage that maybe that has? Lauridsen: I know that the IRS in their announcement gave a broader range of it, but in a conversation with IRS executives, I was told 57%. Amato: Good to know. Lauridsen: That's a big number. Amato: It is a big number. A lot of people still in limbo. And maybe lost in the shuffle: Can claims still be submitted during this period? Lauridsen: I get that question quite a bit, and there's a little bit of confusion around it. Some people think that claims, you can't file them. If you have a legitimate claim, you can still file it. The problem is centered around is the IRS going to process it or will it not be considered a valid claim? It goes back to those conversations that our members need to have with clients because we really just don't know what will happen with the claims. Amato: Does it surprise you the number that were labeled high-risk? Lauridsen: Not based on feedback that we've seen from our members and other external stakeholders. We do know that there were ERC mills out there promoting the claims and they would tell people "you absolutely qualify," when they absolutely didn't. We also know of some of our members where they flat out told the client "you don't qualify," but the ERC mills were telling them, "you do." Then they went off to the side to go get that claim because it was a lot of money for some of these people, and money was talking. Amato: Now, I guess also related to the ERC, on July 1 the IRS published some proposed regulations, so it's hot off the presses for us. What can you tell me about these proposed regs.? Lauridsen: The IRS did drop proposed regulations. These proposed regulations, they provide that the IRS will assess an underpayment of tax on any overpayment interest paid to the taxpayer on an erroneous ERC fund. In other words, not only would you need to pay back the overpayment of the interest portion that you received of a claim, but you would then also have interest penalties on top of it. One thing to note with the proposed regs. is it recognizes that the current regulations don't address the recapture of interest paid. They also note that the proposed regulations are to apply only to interest paid after the issuance of the proposed regulations, so not before. It's still very unclear as to the payments – what about the payments are already went out with or without the interest, and whether the IRS will attempt to recapture that interest? There's just still a lot of confusion around it. As we get more clarity, we will also provide that to our members. Amato: We will post some pertinent resources and also recent JofA coverage of this news and other news we mentioned. Melanie, I mentioned JofA resources, are there other resources that you'd like to recommend that maybe I'm not aware of? Lauridsen: Absolutely, Neil. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast will be doing a deeper dive around the questions that our members and their clients may have, and that should be posted around the same time as this podcast. (Editor's note: The episode Lauridsen mentioned is scheduled to publish the third week in July). Amato: Excellent. Now let's talk a little bit about BOI, beneficial ownership information, that reporting requirement. What's new on the BOI front? Lauridsen: There's quite a few different little updates here. But most recently [the] Maryland attorney general did actually provide and release an opinion on whether assistance by a CPA, with the beneficial ownership information reporting requirement of the Corporate Transparency Act, would constitute the unauthorized practice of law [UPL]. The Maryland attorney general made it very clear that the determination of UPL is fact-specific and that the opinion is only a guideline because, again, they have to take a look at each and every single case. Making clients aware of the BOI reporting requirements, guiding them through FinCEN's FAQs, through the compliance guide, helping [the client fill out] the BOI reporting form, guiding them through questions and answering questions for them — all of that is not considered unauthorized practice of law, according to the Maryland attorney general. If you were to fill out the report on behalf of a client without connecting with the client, there might be some issues there. Also, if there's just a lot of uncertainty and you know that legal knowledge is needed, a legal analysis to determine who a beneficial owner is, then you really should be turning to a lawyer to help you answer those questions. What I'm telling people is what we've been telling members all along, that a CPA will need to use their professional judgment when they engage or work with a client, and they'll have to determine where that line gets drawn as to whether or not a lawyer is needed. If it's a very complex business arrangement, most likely, you will want to include a lawyer. Again, this is all very in line with what we've been telling members, and it's also similar to what other states have said. But no other state has actually put it into writing, and there have been no other opinions. So far, Maryland is the first. Amato: Thanks for that update. Now, I understand also that I guess you're working with congressional staffers on a bill being drafted on BOI. What is that bill designed to do? Lauridsen: Actually, we are w
In this episode of the Tax Section Odyssey podcast, the focus is on the landmark Supreme Court case, Moore v. United States, which examined the constitutionality of the mandatory repatriation tax under Sec. 965 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). The Court upheld the tax with a 7–2 majority. The case opens up further discussion on the taxation of unrealized gains and the constitutionality of a wealth tax. Tony Nitti highlights the significance of the Supreme Court’s decisions on taxation and encourages a thorough reading of the opinions for their educational value. Also, revisit previous episode from Nov. 22, 2023 — All eyes on Moore v. U.S. plus a history lesson on tax cases. Transcript April Walker: Hello everyone and welcome to the Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession and today we have a really quick turnaround podcast that I'm excited about with Tony Nitti, he is a partner at EY National Tax, he is a frequent guest on the show and we recorded late last fall on this topic, the Moore vs. the United States and the podcast was published on November 22nd. Dare I say riveting podcast or at least it was riveting to me. Hopefully, you listened to it. I will put a link to it on the facts and arguments in the Moore case being heard by the Supreme Court. There was a history lesson, several references to Hamilton, my favorite musical and just an all around fun time. Here we are Tony, the court took their sweet time I feel like but they dropped the decision last Thursday and here we are first thing Monday morning to record. We are here for the people, so welcome, Tony. Tony Nitti: Thanks for having me April. Good to be back with you. I'm excited for two reasons. One, you and I and Damian Martin that is also at EY, we did talk about the Moore case back in, I guess it was late November. I know it was right before the oral arguments in our podcasts. Then Damien and I had done a presentation on it at national tax and so I'm excited to come back just to talk about Moore in general. But I'm also excited because I did get a little jealous when I saw you did a separate podcast with Damien last week and I knew that I had to do something to knock him off the top line of the list of AICPA podcasts. Damien, as soon as this publishes you are relegated to number two. All is right with the world now April. April Walker: I'm happy to be part of the competition between two greats such as yourselves. The prior podcast did an amazing job, in my opinion, going through all the details but for those who might not want to take a deep dive, that one probably runs 45, 50 minutes, something like that. For those who don't want to go back and listen, I don't know why you wouldn't but if you don't, Tony, I'd love for you to give us a quick background to set the stage for us on the Moore case. Tony Nitti: I'll do it as quick as possible and I don't want to bury the lead. Let's talk about the ruling before we even get into the facts but Supreme Court did rule by a 7:2 majority in favor of the government. Effectively saying that section 965 of the code that was added as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, what we call the mandatory repatriation tax, that it is in fact constitutional and yes, this was a victory for the government. But let's backup now, let's go through the facts and then talk about why was everybody hanging on that the Supreme Court's decision here, why was this such a eagerly anticipated opinion in the tax community? The facts in Moore, very basic. We've got a retired couple up in the state of Washington and in 2006 they invested some money in an Indian corporation. They took back more than 10% of the stock, the corporation was owned more than 50% by US shareholders, thereby making it a controlled foreign corporation or CFC. Then from 2006 all the way to the end of 2017, the CFC made money but it never actually repatriated any amounts back to the Moores in the form of a dividend. Under the laws in place at that time, the Moores had no income to recognize at the individual level because they hadn't received any dividends from their CFC. Now we know that since 1962, part F has imposed a deemed dividend on shareholders of a CFC when that CFC is earning certain types of passive income but that's not what we're talking about here. The corporation CFC in India, it was earning regular operating income, so there was nothing to attribute back to the Moores in the form of a deemed dividend, until December 22nd, 2017 because that's when Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. As part of that Republican tax bill. One of the things we did was shift from what we call a worldwide system of international taxation to a territorial system of international taxation. With that shift, what was going to happen and what did happen is that income held in a CFC post-2017, when it was repatriated to the US in the form of a dividend would not be subject to tax at the individual level. But you can't just flip a switch and make that move April because if that income has been stashed in a CFC prior to 2017 and has never been subject to US tax. If you suddenly opened the flood gates and allow what was rumored to be anywhere from 1.5 to $2 trillion that had been stashed in CFCs, never subject to US tax. If you allow that to come back post-2017, tax-free, that's a windfall. That money would have never been subject to US taxation. To prevent that windfall, Congress enacted Section 965, this mandatory repatriation tax and what it did is it said, look certain shareholders of a CFC as of December 22nd, 2017, you have to pretend that you received a dividend equal to your pro rata share of the CFCs income from whatever came later 1986 or when you acquired the stock all the way through to the end of 2017. Tony Nitti: By picking up this deemed pretend dividend and paying tax on it, now we can pave the way for this switch to a territorial regime where in the future that same money can actually be repatriated back to the US and not have to be subject to US tax. Tony Nitti: The Moores dutiful taxpayers that they were, paid the 965 tax, I believe it was $14,729 and then they got around to thinking, what did I just pay tax on? I never received anything. I put money into a CFC and I sat on my hands and I enjoyed the fact that the company was doing well but I never took a penny out. Tony Nitti: Why on earth am I cutting a check to the Internal Revenue Service? They sued in district court and the district court dismissed in favor of the government. They appealed up to the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit did the same and then over the summer last year, the Supreme Court decides that they will listen to this case and it certainly surprised a lot of people. Tony Nitti: Why would the nation's highest court agree to hear an argument over $14,000 in tax? But the root of it was the fact that they were arguing, the Moores were that Section 965 was unconstitutional and that's a big deal. When you're saying something's unconstitutional and that goes beyond just your run-of-the-mill argument, you tend to see in Tax Court. Tony Nitti: The reason they were saying it was unconstitutional, it was something that was certainly going to pique the interest of the Supreme Court and certainly in this day and age. What they said was, look. Tony Nitti: The 16th Amendment to the Constitution grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived without having to apportion that tax among the states based on population. When the 16th Amendment says it can tax income by definition in the 16th Amendment has to be realized. There has to be what we call this realization requirement and we'll examine that further. Just for our purposes right now, it just means that I need to have something in my hands that makes me richer from an economic sense that I can do what I will with. Now we know that tax law has expanded upon the concept of realization where you can have concepts of constructive realization, but we'll get into all that. The idea is something had to happen to lead me richer in an economic sense. They said, here in 965, I'm being taxed on amounts that clearly I never received. There has been no realization. If there's been no realization than whatever the taxing me on cannot be income. The only thing they could be taxing me on, is my ownership of stock and a CFC as of a specific date and time, December 22nd, 2017. That type of tax, a tax on ownership of property, is a direct tax under the meaning of Article 1, Section 9 Clause 4 of the constitution, what we call the direct tax clause, and is required by that clause to be apportioned among the states based on population. Since 965, last time I checked it was directly assessed and not apportioned among the states based on population. The tax violated the Constitution. A really fascinating argument, April, because what it looked like it was doing was setting us up for a showdown for the ages because in their written briefs, the taxpayers, more or less said to the Supreme Court. We need you to rule once and for all that, yes the 16th Amendment contains a requirement that income be realized before it can be taxed as income. You can only imagine, and this is what we discussed in our first podcast at National Tax, what the implications of that type of ruling would be if the Supreme Court last Thursday had handed down a ruling that said income has to be realized. It's not just 965 that would face expulsion from the code. How does partnership roll? How to S corporations? How do they survive if there's now this constitutional realization requirement? When you think about pass-through taxation, we know that the owners are taxed on their share of the pass-through entities income, whether they get a penny or not in the form of distributions. If you've suddenly got this realization requirement, how do you make peace with Subchapter K and S? Or what about Subpa
Get a snapshot of the AICPA & CIMA ENGAGE 24 conference held in June at Las Vegas. Conference attendees share their experiences at this premier accounting event along with the knowledge that they gained from various sessions. Highlights include discussions on professional growth, finding balance, mental wellness and the importance of networking. Register now to attend AICPA & CIMA ENGAGE 25. Transcript April Walker: Hello everyone, and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the tax section. Today's episode is a little different as it contains snippets and recordings from several participants at the AICPA and SEMA Engage conference, which was held last week in Las Vegas. I have actually been to this conference as a staff member of the association every year. I believe this is the eighth. 2020 was virtual, of course, but I've been every year and somehow it just always gets a little bit better and better to me. But rather than hear me drone on and on about how great it is, please listen to those who attended. I have with me Ashley [Francis]. Ashley was in person with me. We're recording this on Tuesday, June 11th. We were together last week at the Engage Conference in lovely, hot -- very hot - Las Vegas last week. Ashley, I'd love to hear your overall impression. How was your week at the conference? Ashley Francis: So, my overall, overall, is that I am so exhausted, but it is that good exhaustion. Like you go and you do something, and you do the things that you want to do and you have such a wonderful time. That you're tired, but it was a good experience. Walker: Wonderful, yes. Were you there all four days? Francis: Oh, I was there longer because I did one of the pre sessions. Walker: Look at you. Francis: I did the PFS live pre session, sat for my PFS certificate, and passed the test. Walker: Congratulations! Francis: Thank you! Walker: [Go] you with your new credential. Francis: I know, it's very exciting, Walker: Yeah, I think one more day might be do me in. Francis: I agree, one more day, Walker: It's wonderful… Francis: [Five]days was enough, yeah. Walker: Yeah, it's just a lot. I'm wondering in all of the sessions that you went to, if you had one particular takeaway or one session that really meant something to you. I guess meant something to you professionally or personally. That [included something] you are trying to implement into your life. Francis: Absolutely. And this is a challenging question because there were three sessions that stood out to me, that I could go back and listen to again and again, but the one that impacted me the most, I would have to say, is Andrea Miller's session on balance and mental wellness. Because I think a lot of times, especially for me, everything is just go, do the next thing, do the next thing. Without stopping to think, wait... is this next thing the thing I actually want to be doing? And so even though it was a big room, it was full of folks, her session did such a great job, having folks walk through that experience themselves in a very individual way. When I left that session, I was like, holy cow, what am I going to do with my life now? So, it was really big. I ordered [about] 30 books from the library because of it. Walker: Nice, that's always a good session that creates more work for you to do after the fact. I didn't see that session. I have a long list of sessions that I want to go back to and watch for the first time or watch again. I'm sure you know she used to be staff here at the AICPA and I loved working with her. Francis: She's great. Her career turn has been exciting to watch also. Can I give a shout out to the other two sessions that I would love? Twyla and Barbara Richardson, their session on “making wow client engagements” that was really good. And then Keila and Carrie talked about bringing in non-accountants to help support and sustain and build our firms. That one was brilliant as well because it hit on so many different, important things that we need to think about. Walker: Neither of those which I attended. again, there's so much going on, all the time, which is, not necessarily a negative of engage, but it's just. It's almost like you have FOMO. It's oh, I can't do all this stuff. Yeah. all thank you so much, Ashley, for hopping on and recording with me today. I hope to see you at, if not before, at next year's Engage Francis: You definitely will. Walker: Welcome, Brandon. I have with me Brandon Lagarde, who is a wonderful volunteer with me. [He]does a lot of different things, and he was with me at Engage last week. We had a lot of fun, but Brandon, I'd love to hear about your experience overall at the conference last week. Lagarde: Yes, absolutely. Thanks for having me. Last week was the Engage Conference, and I believe this is the 8th Engage, is that correct? Walker: yeah, that seems right. Lagarde: 8th Conference? It's been many of them, and I think I've been to every one of them, and every time I go, I'm just amazed at the scope of what is provided. It just seems every year it gets bigger and bigger. The speakers are incredible. the exhibitors are getting, better and better, and even, just so much out there. The people that are going. It’s a great experience overall. One thing we hear [a lot] about the accounting population and aging population. I was shocked to see the amount of young people at the conference and excited about accounting and excited about the practice. Also really getting to meet a lot of other people who are trying to do the same thing we're doing. Just this practicing and learning from each other and it was a great experience. Walker: Yeah, it was. It was a lot of energy and a lot of enthusiasm. And sometimes it doesn't come from the older generation. It comes from the younger generation. But I like to be a hanger on [of the younger generation]. Brandon, are there any connections you made from a networking perspective during the week that you would like to share with us? Lagarde: As I mentioned, this is my eighth Engage conference. And this is I believe the second annual AICPA Foundation Golf Tournament that was held Sunday morning before the conference kicked off. This year I looked at my schedule and I'm attempting to play golf, trying to get better and improve. And I've been told that the only way to improve is to play a lot. So, I thought, let me sign up for this tournament. So I actually played in the golf tournament, Sunday morning. Fantastic tournament- I highly recommend it to anyone who's going out there. And got to meet some really great people. You get put with three other people to play with. Didn't know these people before and played a round of golf. Had some good shots, had some bad shots, enough good shots to go back out there. We did not win the tournament, unfortunately, but we made some good friends and I continued to network with those individuals and keep in touch with them throughout the conference and ran into them multiple times. I ran into him at the Old Red event, which was an event that was sponsored by AICPA, on Tuesday night at the conference. This was another great time just to network and to listen to the band. Although, it was a little hard to network there because it was a bit loud. I tried to talk to Damian Martin a couple times, and I think we were screaming at each other at one point just because of the volume of the music. But it was a great place to just meet people. At the exhibit hall, I'm always amazed at the [number] of vendors that are there that are sure They're there to support the AICPA and their product. But it's just amazing the technology that's out there and the things that are happening. Getting to meet some of the people there and getting to make connections with some of the platforms out there and learning more about people. A lot of generative AI conversations, a lot of generative AI companies - some better than others- but, just a lot of opportunity out there to meet people. And that’s the benefit of going to something like this and going to a conference like this. It's not just tax people. It's not just audit people. It's people from all different areas of the CPA practice. At the end of the day, all we're trying to do is help our clients and help our practices improve and getting to see what's out there and getting to meet people who are dealing with the same experiences we're dealing with is you can't put a price tag on that. Walker: Yeah, I agree. Brandon, thanks for joining me for a quick little snippet of your week. It’s one of my favorite weeks of the year. I look forward to Engage 2025. What shenanigans will we get up to? Time will tell. Lagarde: We've already started, we've already started [ENGAGE 2025] to do list. Walker: Yes, we have. Things we didn't get to that we want to accomplish. Most of them are very responsible types of to dos. Lagarde: Absolutely, I already have it in my calendar next year too. I'm already down to go. Walker: Wonderful. Lagarde: [Looking] forward to it. Walker: Thanks for joining me, Brandon. Lagarde: Thank you. Walker: Welcome, Mark. Mark Gallegos was at the ENGAGE conference. We're recording this on a Tuesday, June 11th. Mark, tell me, I know it was not your first time, you've been to ENGAGE several times, but, what specifically, was a highlight for you about last week's ENGAGE conference? Gallegos: Yeah, I think from the ENGAGE conference, it's the human aspect to me. Meeting people, interacting with people, and really getting to listen and learn from others. The way I look at it is, you get to learn from experts in the field in areas that you think you know a little bit about, and you learn that you have a lot of learning and growth to go forward with. Learning on the latest trends in the profession, strategies, and regulatory updates from a tax perspective. And then, learning from these experts and sta
The OECD BEPS 2.0 project consists of two pillars. Pillar One applies to the biggest and most profitable multinational enterprises and reallocates part of their profit and taxing rights to the countries where they sell their products and services. Pillar Two introduces a global minimum corporate tax of 15% to prevent tax avoidance and base erosion. The U.S. has not yet adopted the OECD project into its tax system, but it will still impact U.S. multinational businesses that operate abroad. Practitioners need to know about the OECD project because it is a major change in the international tax system that will affect many multinational enterprises and their tax compliance. AICPA resources OECD BEPS 2.0 - Pillar One and Pillar Two — The OECD BEPS 2.0 sets out to provide a tax reform framework allowing for more transparency in the global tax environment. Advocacy Comments to Treasury on tax issues of OECD Pillar Two, Feb. 14, 2024 Comments to Treasury on Amount B of OECD Pillar One, Dec. 12, 2023 Other resources OECD BEPS – Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Sharing Transcript April Walker: Hello, everyone, and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a Lead Manager from the Tax Section, and I'm here today with my friend and colleague, Henry Grzes. He's a colleague here with me on the AICPA's Tax Practice & Ethics team. Welcome back, Henry. Henry Grzes: Thanks April. Happy to be back. Walker: Wonderful. The aim and goal of this podcast is definitely not to teach you everything you ever wanted to know about OECD and Pillar One and Pillar Two because we certainly couldn't do that on this podcast. But, we would like to talk about why you need to care, why you do need to know high level what this framework is about, and I'm going to try to listen also because I know when I start hearing this, I definitely tend to turn off my listening ears. Everyone turn on your listening ears, as they say in preschool, and let's get going. First, I've been saying and I've said it a couple of times, and I know that we as accountants love acronyms, OECD. Who is this, and what are their goals? Grzes: We're going to start basic, as you said. OECD stands for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Now from their website, they describe themselves as an international organization that works to build better policies which result in better lives. Their goal is to shape policies that foster prosperity, equality, opportunity, and well-being for us all. Together with governments and policymakers and citizens, they work on establishing evidence-based international standards and finding solutions to a range of social, economic, and environmental challenges. These include economic performance, creating jobs to foster strong education, and fighting international tax evasion and international standard setting. The goal of the OECD project we're talking about today is to reform the international tax system and provide a more transparent environment for tax. The official title of the project is referred to as the OECD BEPS 2.0, Pillar One and Pillar Two. By the way, BEPS stands for Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Walker: Thanks, Henry. I think we can all agree that transparent tax environment sounds like a good goal, but when I start hearing about pillars, I think about building buildings, but that's not what this is about at all. So tell me more about Pillar One and Pillar Two. Grzes: Each pillar addresses a different gap in the existing rules that allow multinational enterprises, also referred to as MNEs, to avoid paying taxes. First, Pillar One applies to the biggest and most profitable MNEs and reallocates part of their profit and taxing rights to the countries where they sell their products and provide their services. In effect, where their consumers are. It deals with transfer pricing issues and the allocation of profits and adopts new nexus and profit allocation rules with the objective of assigning a greater share of taxing rights over global business income to market countries. Without these rules, these companies can earn significant profits in a market without paying much tax there. It is a plan to reallocate some taxing rights to countries based on where their customers are located. Pillar One originally targeted large, profitable digital companies, but now applies to most large profitable multinationals. The G20 OECD project on addressing the taxation of digital economy began in 2019, building on the final reports issued in 2015 in the earlier projects on BEPS. Pillar Two was released in December 2021, and when adopted, would apply to a much larger group of MNEs with global annual revenue of 750 million EUR. These companies would be subject to a global minimum corporate tax. With these new rules, companies organizing their affairs in a way that their profits, in a given jurisdiction, whether that jurisdiction is deemed to be a low tax one or otherwise, are subject to an effective tax rate lower than the minimum rate. If that is the case, those profits would be still taxed at the minimum rate of 15%. Walker: In April-language, Pillar One is talking about transfer pricing, which transfer pricing obviously has been an issue for the whole time I've been doing tax, which is a long time, and then Pillar Two is a minimum tax, and it's a high level, 750 million EUR. Where does this regime stand in the United States? Grzes: Currently, there are no enacted laws that incorporate Pillar Two into the U.S. taxing system. There has been proposed legislation, but the implemented laws abroad will still affect U.S. multinational businesses. U.S. adoption of these pillars would require Congress's approval. While countries are already adopting Pillar Two without a U.S. agreement, Pillar One would likely require U.S. approval to go forward since a large fraction of the income affected is from U.S. multinationals. The deadline for the agreement on Pillar One was extended for a year through 2024. Canada was considering a digital service tax, also known as a DST, and delayed adoption while Pillar One was under consideration, but it is now continuing with a retroactive DST. According to the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and members of Congress, if Pillar One is adopted, there will likely be a revenue loss to the U.S. due to the reallocation of taxing rights, and increased tax on U.S. firms, and an associated increase claim of foreign tax credits. If Pillar One is not adopted, DSTs that have been adopted over the past few years in other countries would likely remain in effect and proliferate in other jurisdictions. There is no current proposed regulation in the U.S. that incorporates Pillar Two into the U..S taxing system, as I mentioned earlier. The IRS issued a notice released in December of 2023 which barely scratches the surface on the relation of Pillar Two with foreign tax credit and dual consolidated losses. But Pillar Two has not yet been enacted in the U.S. Despite the lack of adoption in the U.S. at this point, the laws impact MNEs because they do business abroad, but there is still much needed guidance in the U.S. on these taxes. Walker: Quick summary, no U.S. taxes have been implemented by this minimum tax so far for Pillar Two, but still, we'll talk about this in a few minutes, still we can't ignore this and we'll talk about why. A question came up for me, again, I'm no international tax expert by any means, but I hear minimum tax and I think how does this relate, if at all, to the corporate alternative minimum tax, CAMT, I think it's also called, affectionately, imposed by the Inflation Reduction Act a few years ago. Are they connected or like each other in any way, and also how about the GILTI regime that was added as part of TCJA? I know that's also an international tax provision. Grzes: The two taxes CAMT and Pillar 2 are completely unrelated. Inflation Reduction Act imposed a Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, as you mentioned, CAMT is the acronym equal to the excess of 15% of a corporation's adjusted financial statement income. Keeping with the theme of acronyms, that would be AFSI over its corporate alternative minimum tax, foreign tax credit. AFSI is the net income or loss set forth on an applicable financial statement with certain adjustments. This tax is effective as of December 31, 2022. Pillar 2, however, is a 15% effective tax rate and CAMT is a 15% tax based on AFSI, which is effectively booked income. In regards to GILTI as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the U.S. adopted various changes to its international tax rules, including this new tax, which we refer to as GILTI, which stands for Global Intangible Low Tax Income. These rules apply to the revenue of non U.S. companies that U.S. corporations and other citizens control. These entities are referred to as controlled foreign corporations or CFCs. GILTI is a CFC blended tax regime under Pillar 2, but it's important to note the taxing of GILTI is much different than Pillar 2, even though Pillar 2, as it was being developed, used GILTI as its basis. GILTI is based on a blended tax regime versus Pillar 2, which is based on a country-by-country one. Walker: That's helpful to help me understand. Definitely still no expert on this, but I certainly want people to understand why they need to know to be able to talk intelligently about these different regimes and taxes. Tell me, give me a case for why I need to know more and care about these developments? Grzes: Well, that's a great question, and as we all know, the world is becoming a smaller place by the day. Although these rules primarily impact large corporations, the accounting profession has a role because many practitioners will need to understand these rules and stay abreast of the changes which are happening quickly so
Melanie Lauridsen, AICPA & CIMA VP of Tax Policy & Advocacy, provides an update on IRS service improvements and the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act funding. She also discusses other key tax advocacy tax initiatives that are top of mind right now. AICPA resources Employee retention credit resource center — Access resources to learn the latest on the employee retention credit (ERC). Beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting resource center — Access resources to learn about the beneficial ownership information reporting requirement under FinCEN’s Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). Transcript Neil Amato: Welcome back to the Journal of Accountancy podcast. This is Neil Amato with the JofA. I'm joined again by Melanie Lauridsen, vice president–Tax Policy & Advocacy for the AICPA. This is a special collaboration episode between the JofA podcast and the Tax Section Odyssey podcast. Melanie and I are going to talk about some tax topics that are top of mind for practitioners. This is the third such update in calendar year 2024. First, Melanie, welcome back to the podcast. We're recording in late April. In the tax community – I’m more the general consumer, not a practitioner – but I'm wondering, is there a sigh of relief maybe for the tax community? Or maybe a setting of those out-of-office emails and packing of bags for vacation when busy season ends? Melanie Lauridsen: Neil, absolutely. There definitely is. I think of filing season like running a marathon in a two-hour timeframe. It's very intense, and at times you just don't know if you're going to make it. It feels very exhausting. But you do, and it's hard to keep up that pace. So, a quick shout-out to everyone and congratulations to those that did just wrap up another filing season. They've definitely earned that break and that vacation time. Amato: Again, we're recording late April, April 26 to be specific. This episode will air in early May. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it feels like this year is the first sort of normal March and April for tax season that we've had since 2019. Is that accurate? Lauridsen: Neil, last year was also a relatively smooth filing season. We did have uncertainty about how things were going to go. However, the IRS did receive the Inflation Reduction Act funding, which allowed last year to show improvements to their services. This is actually the second filing season in which the IRS has had access to that IRA funding. According to the IRS stats, they had a really strong filing season. Now, I also believe this is in part because the IRS had a smooth runway for this filing season. There really weren't new laws, and, of course, the government shutdown did not occur, which forced the IRS to shut down. Collectively, like I said, it's a smooth filing season for the IRS to be able to show more improvements. Now, most notably, according to the IRS, they've reached an 88% level of service, which is an increase from 84% level of service at the same time last year. They also answered over a million more calls this year with shorter wait times. That's all really good. However, I do need to caution that the IRS's numbers are a snapshot of a moment in time. That 88% level of service on their phone lines really captures a limited number of phone lines that they have and only a subset of the callers of those limited number of phone lines. For example, last year they had that 84% level of service that I mentioned. When looked at the entire year and looking at all the calls the IRS received, they really only answered about 34% of all the calls. I also have to plug in that each year, we also deploy our own survey immediately after filing season, and we reach out to our members and ask them how they felt finally season went. Those responses oftentimes align more so with that 34%, and they also align with Erin Collins’ report to Congress on how the IRS did overall. Hopefully, for the next podcast, we can go over the results that we get from our members. Amato: That's great, and it definitely does show that while there has been a smooth runway, it doesn't necessarily mean everything's going smoothly. It's certainly not all calm as it relates to issues affecting taxpayers, tax practitioners. What are some of those topics that are still popping up, that are top of mind for practitioners as we head into May and beyond? Lauridsen: I do have to say BOI is a hot topic, beneficial ownership information. However, during the filing season, it got put on the back burner. But now that filing season is over, I've had a flood of people reaching out on the issue and really asking about the impacts regarding the court case with the National Small Business Association and what that really means. Also, unfortunately, we're starting to enter the natural disaster season as we head particularly into the October filing season, so people start to ask questions about that. Actually just this past week, we endorsed a bipartisan legislation to provide additional tax relief to victims of natural disasters. Specifically, what we're supporting is when the IRS extends a filing deadline due to a disaster declaration, it would allow the taxpayers to claim and recover refunds not only within those three years but also that extended period of the disaster-related extension. Again, very helpful for victims of relief. Changing topics again, another area that we're also working on, it has to do with digital assets. The IRS is beginning to ramp up more and more with that, and we're trying to find clarity around that tax framework for digital assets. Amato: Yes. In the Journal of Accountancy, we recently wrote about the posting of the Form 1099-DA. Is that the draft, or the final form? Lauridsen: Neil, you're right. It is the draft form, and they did release it. The intention is to show the report of the information of the sale or disposition of digital assets. That's going to be kicking off Jan. 1 of 2025, so that is coming soon. Amato: Thank you for that. Tell me your reaction or response to this IRS news. Commissioner Danny Werfel said recently that the IRS still receives 20,000 employee retention credit claims a week. That's even though the processing of those claims has been halted since September. Seems like a lot. Lauridsen: It is. Well, Commissioner Werfel actually told the Senate Finance Committee on April 16 that the tax bill passed by the House in January would actually help the IRS combat ERC fraud claims. That's where they're asking for ERC claims to be retroactively stopped. From his perspective, he said that eligible claims, they do exist, but they're very hard to find and it's finding a needle in a haystack. He's not very happy with that aspect. If you see the statistics of their moratorium, the withdrawal program, and the voluntary disclosure program, there's real money at stake here. We've been told that it's costing the government something about $3 billion per week to maintain the ERC claims open. Now, all of this is to say that I personally wouldn't be surprised if that provision in that House bill to stop ERC claims retroactively, if it were to get stripped out from that bill, and it were to become a stand-alone bill that gets passed. There's just a lot of support for this provision, especially with that amount of money associated with it. Amato: I heard that was spoken about in the most recent AICPA Town Hall, April 25. That $3 billion number definitely stands out. Clearly, a lot still to be wrapped up as it relates to ERC claims. You mentioned that tax bill; that was going to be my next question. What's the update on that? I guess it's now in a committee in Congress, and for clarity, which committee exactly is it that has the bill, and where does it stand? Lauridsen: It's with the Senate right now. The House passed the bill, and it went to the Senate. The last I heard was that the Senate wanted to do their own markup. But ultimately, if you look at what's happening in the world around us, there are a lot of things going on that the Hill has to focus on, and it takes precedence over this bill. It was also my understanding that this bill, as it stands, was barely on life support. Which it's not to say that it can't be revived in other iterations or eventually it could get passed, but as it stands right now, the likelihood of that bill pushing through is not very high. Amato: If it doesn't go through, what happens? How does it restart if there's a new tax bill? Lauridsen: On something like that, it really comes down to what I mentioned with the ERC provision. That has a lot of support, and people can then strip certain pieces out of the bill and either pass them as standalone bills, which is probably what would happen with the ERC bill, but you can also introduce it with other packages, different pieces of it. So like I said, it could be different iterations, different portions of it. It doesn't mean it's completely dead, particularly with the ERC piece. Amato: If it's a 600-page bill, but not all of it's going to pass, then maybe the 60 most important pages here and the 30 most important pages there could be repackaged into a new bill? Lauridsen: Yes. Something like that. Yes. Amato: I realized those are just my estimates and oversimplification, but helps me understand. I hope it helps the listeners understand. You've mentioned disaster legislation, obviously, the news topics we've been following, ERC, digital assets, BOI, beneficial ownership information. But elsewhere from an advocacy standpoint, what are some of the top AICPA priorities for the second half of this year? Lauridsen: Well, Neil, as you're aware, it is an election year, so we're absolutely going to be seeing tax reform coming up. We already know we have TCJA provisions that will begin to sunset. We have also heard of an IRS tax administration procedural package, which is going to have, we've heard things like potentially the Safe Harbor Act, some disaster relief provisions, or thin
Mark Gallegos, CPA, MST, Partner — Porte Brown LLC, discusses the importance of having processes around retaining documents for accounting firms as well as advising clients on what information is important for them to maintain. It is imperative to manage files in an efficient manner, and, often, there are different considerations for physical storage versus digital storage. AICPA resources Document Retention FAQs for Tax Practitioners — Having a written document retention policy for your firm is a must-do along with advising clients on taxpayer record retention. Document Retention Policy Template for Tax Practitioners — Formalize your tax firm’s policies about retaining documents related to firm operations and client records. Optimizing your tax practice — Explore tools to manage a more efficient tax practice, enhance your operations, add value to your service offerings and reinforce client relationships. Transcript April Walker: Hello everyone and welcome to the AICPA's tax section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the Tax Section. I'm here today with Mark Gallegos from Porte Brown in Chicago. He is a second-time guest, but welcome back, Mark. Mark Gallegos: Thanks for having me, April. Walker: Today's topic is about document retention, and this came to my mind for two reasons. One, on a practical level, we at the AICPA just updated some resources around this, some FAQs, as well as a document template, which of course I will share in the show notes. But second, on a more personal level, recently my family has been cleaning out my in-law’s house and it was pretty clear that their document retention policy was to retain all documents. Either they didn't have one or that was their policy to retain everything. That was fun. But I thought this doesn't seem like a super sexy topic, but it's an important topic. Mark, I thought maybe let's talk about the importance of a firm having a document retention policy. Maybe talk about some risks associated with not having one or maybe you have one to check the box, but you're not following it. What are your thoughts on that? Gallegos: I know with clients I always run into either they save everything forever and then they have no idea what they've actually saved in all the boxes. Then there's ones that don't save anything. Document retention policy is so important. It's critical, especially to a CPA firm, but even beyond that to individuals, to businesses. Because you're dealing with sensitive and regulated information, and when you're looking at that, there's different areas you need to break it down to. Many industries we work in, including the accounting profession, you're highly regulated and you need to keep documents and you need to have a defined policy that helps define what are the legal obligations for keeping these. You don't want to be fined. You want to make sure you are the trusted adviser that can provide the information, but also you don't want to be the one that's keeping things for 20 or 30 years, that is just keeping up space. It makes you efficient as an organization because you're basically organizing your documents. You can easily access them, and you can pull them when you need to. It's a good way of keeping security on those documents. Because at the end of the day, you want to be able to secure them. Obviously, you can secure them in paper form, we can secure them in digital form, and we'll talk about all that. But I think there's different ways, because it is sensitive information, to make sure that you're also doing that. I think one of the most important things is from my perspective, from an accounting firm perspective, is client trust. They trust us with their information. They trust us with their documents and so we want to make sure that we maintain a systematic approach to handling their information in a sensitive way. We have that responsibility, and our reputation is on the line to make sure that we're holding up to that. But beyond that, there's a lot of risks that can go involved in this. You're talking about sometimes just legal risks and regulatory risks, like we mentioned. If you don't have a policy, you might retain the documents [for] too long or too short, or maybe you don't have a policy, so you destroy them after a year when really you should have kept them for a period of time that was in fact what you should have kept them for. Also, now, someone needs them, and you don't have them. Operationally, it's good to have it because without a retention policy, these documents can accumulate [and that] can lead to your whole organization being disorganized. Then when you need to find something, you can't find it. That I find is a very common occurrence out there. On top of that, security. Walker: Lots of reasons to have one. This never happened to me when I was in practice, but I don't know if it has happened to you, or you've heard about it anecdotally. Again, hope it never happens to you, but if in a lawsuit, your records are subpoenaed and you have a document retention policy and you're following it, then maybe if you are asked to produce documents and they're outside of your document retention policy. You're not required to provide them. But if you do have them, then you have to provide them and maybe provide even more. I think that's like a firm liability risk, also, like so many risks around this. I don't know if you have any thoughts on that piece. Gallegos: That alone is why you need the policy. I have not run into that. I've had other colleagues and other firms run into this policy problem, where they've been subpoenaed to provide, we'll call it tax documents, tax work papers and they don't have them. The first thing that people asked for when they start getting more into a litigation situation is providing your retention policy and they realized they don't have one then. Now, whether they've kept them and destroyed them in the proper amount of time, now their reputation, potentially, they could be on the hook for other fines and penalties. It's just unnecessary legal action that they get drawn into, when at the end of the day, if they actually had a policy, they can say, we kept it for, we'll say seven years and then we destroyed them. Here's the record of us destroying them and you can provide all that information. It helps the entire situation, which I think is very important. Walker: I think so. We've talked about the importance of having a policy. What about the guidelines? Are there very firm and fast guidelines on how long you keep certain documents? Gallegos: One of the things, for us, tax returns — you want to keep indefinitely. I tell my clients that all the time, but there are workpapers and bank statements and payroll documents. Typically, seven years is the policy. But you want to make sure that you are adhering to what are the rules. And for whether it's a permanent document or whether it's just a work paper. [Determine] what kind of document it is and make sure your policy identifies what your policy is to keep them and then how are you taking steps to make sure that you're following that. When you're looking at different guidelines. Obviously, the legal requirements are based on what kind of document. Is it a federal tax law mandate? Is it something that is more HIPAA, health care type stuff? Is it SEC regulations and finance? Is it legal? Then you want to establish those categories to identify those different types of documents so that you can put them into different buckets. I think that's very important in this process. Walker: I mentioned that we have a template for it. It's again, just those general guidelines that you can use for your firm and share with your clients. But as Mark said, we want to make sure that you understand that there could be different reasons — Government grants or something like that or different state requirements related to keeping certain types of documents. You need to be able to think through that and understand it. [Let’s talk about] document retention in general, in this digital age. I feel like there's still paper. We talk about offices being paperless. My house is certainly not paperless. I wish it was, but I just remember, I started practicing in the mid '90s, which makes me feel like an ancient crone at this moment. But anyway, it was like file cabinets. I can still close my eyes and think about going into the file room, pulling out drawers and things. These were the files that need to be destroyed and we moved files around. I don't know, it’s just bananas to think about. But [hopefully] your policy is not that the cabinets are full, and we need to go through them. How do you think about digital storage and what are your thoughts about managing that? Digital storage seems like you have an unlimited amount. Again, you go back to, it feels like, oh, I don't need to care about this. But you really do for the reasons we mentioned earlier. What do you think about digital storage, Mark? Gallegos: I'm with you. I started in the '90s, I think '97, and I remember filing cabinets full of paper and everything was paper. Now we as a firm, we're very paperless. But you still see paper and I still go places where I see nothing but paper. I think it's just all over the board, but there is definitely a shift from the physical to the digital document storage. It's altered the landscape out there. We're seeing more and more of that because everything's pretty much digital. But that's good and bad. You've got to look at it as scalability and space availability. In the past, if I had lots of documents, I had rows and rows of file cabinets or rooms just filled with it and then off-site storage. They were paying an enormous amount of money to keep that paper. Then now with digital, it's all in the Cloud, we'll say, or in some sort of format. However, without a policy, you can store so much stu
In this episode, listen to a conversation with Jody Padar, the Radical CPA, about the evolving role of CPAs in the face of technological advancements. Jody emphasizes the need for proactive communication, year-round tax planning, and restructuring business models to prioritize client needs so that CPAs can maintain their relevance in the accounting industry. To learn more about Jody and her new book coming out soon, please visit her website. AICPA resources Reimagining your tax practice — Tackle today’s top practice management issues with insights and tips from pioneers in the tax community. Transforming Your Business Model — “Transform” indicates a dynamic but collaborative change that our business models will support. This concept invites firms to join the discussion and explore their businesses through the lens of the five focus areas. Transcript April Walker: Hello everyone and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcasts, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the tax section and I'm here today with Jody Padar. She is the Radical CPA. I can't wait to hear more about that. I think we’ve both heard of each other, but we've never officially met. I'm excited to chat with you today. I saw a LinkedIn post that you did sometime during last week about communication gaps between clients and tax advisers. It really just resonated with me and so I reached out and I'm super appreciative that you sat down with me, we're actually chatting on April 15th. I'm happy to not be scrambling around doing tax extensions today, but I think we will have a great conversation today. Let's start off with a quick summary about your observations that led you to that post and just where you're coming to this conversation from. Jody Padar: Sure, I'm Jody Padar, the Radical CPA, and probably one of a handful of branded CPAs. I've been creating disruption in the industry for years now and really it began as a small innovative firm owner almost 15 plus years ago. I was at early cloud adopter, disrupted the space around cloud and technology. Fast-forward, I owned my own firm for 14 years. I sold it in 2020 right before the pandemic. I joined Botkeeper for a couple of years, so I went to the tech side and then I was recruited away from Botkeeper to April [which] is the name of the software company. I started to build tax software from scratch. Now I currently work as a senior adviser to April and then I'm all-in on being the Radical CPA and helping firms evolve to the next level of, I'll say, disruption — it's not really just disruption. The next level of relevance, really, as AI and all the new technologies come into firms to evolve them to stay relevant in the future. How I got to that post was, I sold my firm in 2020. A couple of clients last week reached out to me because they were actually resold. When I sold, they didn't join Botkeeper. They actually went to another practitioner and then that new practitioner was sold again. Fast-forward, they're in a new firm and they reach back out to me because where they landed in the new firm, they are not feeling heard. Ultimately, they do not feel that this new firm is listening to them and I don't think that they're unusual on that. When you see the post, and it got over 150 responses, a lot of tax practitioners feel that not all firms treat clients the same way from a feeling perspective. When I talk about it, I'm talking about in [terms of] small businesses under a million in revenue. I know it could go up, but that's my sweet spot. I think what happens is practitioners get the technical right and they get the deadlines, but they forget that the consumer that they're serving really doesn't care about that. They don't know any different, but they do know how you make them feel and they're not feeling heard. They're not feeling they're getting the right explanation and they're not feeling that CPAs are giving them what they're paying for. It was interesting because there was a little bit of scuttle on it saying — you sold your firm pre-pandemic — what do you know? That was the feeling and I get it. It's been a rough few years. But if we're not selling and we're not meeting our customers needs where they need to be due to product market fit, what value are we to them? We can't complain about deadlines. We can't complain about lack of talent. We can't complain about all that other stuff because ultimately, we're here to serve our customer. If our customer is not getting the feeling that they need and the understanding that they need about their tax situation, guess what? We're not going to be relevant because there are technology companies coming into the space that are meeting those needs. I think that's the hard part for practitioners to hear. Again, I'm the person who's pushing the bleeding edge, but I think it's a real eye-opener to say, your competition is not the firm down the block. It's someone else in a technology space whose meeting their needs from a feeling perspective and a communication perspective and an understanding perspective and if we want to still be relevant and do business as tax preparers in the future, I think we need to up our game. Walker: I love all of that and I call myself a recovering tax practitioner because I'm on the other side now. But I love, it's really a passion of mine, to think about, we can re-imagine this. We can rethink the way it traditionally worked. It didn't work for me to stay as a tax practitioner and why was that? But I love it — asking the hard questions and making people think, hey, maybe it's not everybody else's fault. Maybe you need to look in the mirror a little bit. Let's think about when back when you were in the trenches and a firm owner, what strategies did you use to build those strong relationships with clients? Because that's really what we're talking about today. We're talking about communication and relationships. And no, an AI bot is not going to be able to do all the tax returns. That's not what we're saying. I know that's not what you're saying, but technology is going to be able to do a lot of things. The relationship is where we've got to figure that piece out. Padar: The more technology comes in, the more human we have to be. We have to up our game on relationships. One of the reasons I'm so radical is because I threw out the billable hour. I was all about fixed fee pricing. How do you price a tax return upfront by getting paid up front for the work you're going to do, making sure that you're talking to the client quarterly at least, if not monthly, from a tax perspective and doing planning year-round. I didn't let just tax returns come into my firm. You had to come in for at least quarterly projections, if not more. Restructuring your business model so that it is meeting the customer's demands and where they want to be. It's very hard to appease a customer when you're only talking compliance because the value in tax [work] is in the planning, it's not in the return. How do you position yourself to do that? How do you set your pricing? How do you set your sales process? How do you set all of those other things? Then when it comes to communication, it's about scheduling those calls ahead of time and having those conversations year round. If the customers are cranky in March, it's because they haven't been communicated through the whole year. Because we know in March, that compliance document shouldn't be a surprise. Because you should have done planning before year-end and you should have had conversations the prior June about where that taxpayer was standing. Again, it's how do we re-imagine who it is we're serving, what it is we're selling and how we deliver it so that our customer is the focal point of it. Because I think in years past, it was always like, that’s the end result and that’s not it. We need to re-imagine the whole process. The thing is we can schedule these things. We can put in strategies to have conversations four times a year. Again, if you think about pricing and how [changes to the model can be] very disruptive to a firm. But if you price upfront for it, then the customer, they see it as part of what it is they get and you're not chasing them down. You send them an email and say, it's time to schedule our quarterly appointment. They put it on their books and you have that tax planning conversation as opposed to asking them to ask for it. Because they won't ask for it because they don't know it's important to them. They don't know what to ask for. Walker: True. Another thing I was thinking about was, and this is a topic that's come up on this podcast before, is talking about active listening. It's definitely something that is a skill that I'm working on. In my life, in my family, in my dealing with listening to what people need. But let's talk about how important it is or how important you feel it is and building that bridge really between being that compliance [focused]: I asked you questions, you tell me things, I prepare a tax return, I check it off and I'm done and being a true business advisor. Padar: That's where, again, I think it comes into scheduling these conversations and making tax a year-round conversation and restructuring your firms. That is part of what you do in the off season. Have these conversations at least quarterly- could be more- so that you’re used to talking to this customer and they’re used to calling you when they need you. I would argue that most of this comes down to pricing because I think pricing is the number one thing that pushes people from calling their CPAs. If they think they're going to get billed by the hour or if they think there's going to be an extra charge for this, they don't call and it's very hard to be proactive when you're not getting called. When you fundamentally shift that pricing model, now all of a sudden your customers are calling you all the time and you can be pr
Elizabeth (Liz) Young, the new Director of the AICPA & CIMA’s Tax Practice & Ethics team joins the podcast to discuss the importance of clear communication with clients, especially during the tax filing season. Liz emphasizes the need for valid contracts and signed engagement letters before filing extensions. Common risks and pitfalls associated with not having them in place include improperly filed extensions, missed deadlines, fee disputes and potential loss of revenue. Sharing her passion for safeguarding the profession and futureproofing it for upcoming generations, she is focused on initiatives to recruit, retain and support young practitioners. AICPA resources Say "I do" to engagement letters — Understand the importance of establishing parameters of client relationships and detail the scope of services to be provided. Tax Extension FAQ for Clients — Do you have clients who are hesitant about filing an extension to file their tax return? Communicate the who, what, when and how to ease their minds. Annual Tax Compliance Kit — Engagement letters, organizers, checklists and practice guides help you manage your tax season workflow Tax season resource center — Access the AICPA’s central hub for guidance, tools and developments throughout the tax filing season. Transcript April Walker: On today's podcast, listen for some important reminders for the upcoming April 15th deadline. Hi everyone and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, Lead Manager from the tax section, and I'm here today with Liz Young. She is my new boss and the new director of tax practice and ethics team here at the AICPA. Welcome, Liz. Liz Young: Thanks, April. It's great to be here with everyone. Walker: Here we are. We're actually recording this on April 1st, but it will post later in the week, and April 15th is coming up very quickly. I'm sure our members have everything handled and in order and ready to go. But in case you don't, I thought we could talk through some deadline oriented questions that we get a lot and get your thoughts on them, Liz, especially considering your most recent position which was in KPMG and risk management. To start off, let's talk about filing extensions. Because in the next week or so, you're either filing extensions or you're wrapping up returns. I thought that'll be a good starting place. I'm thinking about two different scenarios. First, your clients that you've had forever. You're sure they're going to sign the engagement letter, but they haven't signed it yet. You've been in contact with them for this and that reason, but the return's not going to be completed before the deadline. It may be that their tax returns is always on extension. What are the risks and pitfalls in this situation with filing an extension without having that signed engagement letter? Young: Thanks, April. It's great to be here today and it's wonderful to have the opportunity to talk about this topic with you. It's certainly a topic that is very important to me. First off, I would like to say I'm extremely happy to be back on board with the AICPA and the tax practice and ethics group. I used to be in the policy and advocacy group at the AICPA for four years. It's really great to see another side of things here as well. But previously, as you mentioned, I was in KPMG and their risk management group, and I got to see a number of issues that practitioners face, specifically in this area. Our group at the firm always took a pretty strict approach here when looking at both professional standards and applying risk policies to these types of scenarios. I'll address a few things that I think are important to consider specifically. For example, there are both reputational and professional risks that come into play here and that can arise with regard to performing work when the taxpayer is not actually a client or is no longer a client because the terms of the contract are no longer valid. Really the fact of the matter is if there is not a valid contract in place, then there's not a valid client relationship, and you should not be filing an extension on behalf of the taxpayer. There are certain nuances that can arise, but really, we recommend taking a strict approach in this type of situation. Further, take into consideration that contracts typically last for a set period of time. For example, a standard term can be 15 months. That's typical of what we would see at KPMG and would have in place at the firm. If returns or extensions are filed without proper contracts in place or when there are lapses in contract terms, because you go over that 15 month period, then a number of things can happen. For instance, an extension may be improperly filed because the extension is not reviewed by the taxpayer before the filings occur. Deadlines might be missed if the wrong extension is filed. For example, what if there was a structural change that occurred and the firm who prepared the extension was not aware of the structural change? The wrong extension might have been filed for the wrong entity. Perhaps if you're looking at an extension for a state return the wrong state was included, you might not be aware of this. There can also be issues such as fee disputes that can arise subsequently when the client comes back and will not pay because there was not an agreed upon fee structure in advance for the work. Ultimately, there may be time lost that needs to be written off by the team, and ERPS (enterprise resource planning system – a billing system) might need to be adjusted downwards when the expected fees cannot be collected. Really, these are just a few examples of pitfalls that can occur and traps for the unwary in this area. Walker: As you were talking, I was just thinking that never happens – that our client doesn't tell us stuff that happens during the year, like a structural change. But really it doesn't [always] happen, [and this could be the result]. I know our listeners are probably a wide range of firms. We've acknowledged that KPMG is certainly one of the top four firms. People who are listening are not necessarily in that situation. In thinking about that, yes, I appreciate you bringing up the risks, but then looking at it from the other side, what about that long-term client? That they expect you to file an extension. You don't file an extension. What are the risks there? Young: Sure. Yeah, we definitely see that a lot in small to mid-size types clients or firms sizes. There are definitely risks to consider here as well with all types of firms sizes when an extension is not filed. First of all, I would say business risks impact everyone in this type of situation. You mentioned the client relationship can be hurt long term. If the taxpayer believes they are your client, has an expectation that an automatic filing may occur on their behalf, say, due to history, but then ultimately it does not, you could lose out on long-term work. This directly impacts fees and revenues to the firm if there is this damaged or lost relationship. There are other things to consider as well. Another element that's very important to consider is that if a filing is missed, then the client, no matter how large or small, will also face penalties imposed by the IRS potentially from missing the filing deadlines. You could have failure to file penalties, failure to pay penalties. This may be a surprise to the client. If they didn't know they missed a deadline because they were expecting you to file. That's a main point of consideration as well. There's also statute of limitation concerns to be aware of. The statute of limitation typically starts to run three years after the return is filed. If you have an extension that's properly granted until October 15th, then three years would run from then if the return is filed on October 15. But if the extension has never filed, then the extension of limitation would begin to run three years after the tax return initial due date. The client may believe that their statute of limitation is different. That's something to be aware of as well because that's definitely a cause for concern. I think the bottom line is that it's very important to be proactive with your clients, no matter how big or small with regard to communication about these potential risks that can develop and the importance of entering into a valid contract because of that. Walker: That's what we were talking about when this came up. Just [having] better communication - I think will be a theme of this podcast today. Just making sure you're communicating exactly what your expectations are, and if your expectation is, "Hey, we're not going to file an extension until you sign this engagement letter." Even if we've done not a stitch of work for you that we're just not going to do it. I’m thinking about another kind of set of circumstances and that would be clients, you really just haven't heard from at all. You're aren't 100% sure they are are going to be a client. You addressed some of these in earlier conversations, but I feel there's two steps. I've got a client list and I haven't heard from them and you're really busy. What are the risks or pitfalls in this particular situation about filing an extension? Again, when you haven't heard from them. And then recommendations that you might have [considering the] limited amount of time [remaining]. What would you recommend in this case? Young: Thank you, April. I think as we have been emphasizing so far - communication is really key. The firm needs to be clear with the taxpayer that if the they are going to continue to be a client and the firm is going to continue to do work for them, then both parties need to have a contract in place by "x" date or the firm is not going to be able to do the work. This communication really needs to start as early as possible and well in advance of the due date for any tax filing
Steve Turanchik from the AICPA’s Digital Assets Tax Task Force discusses upcoming reporting requirements for digital assets. Sec. 6045 will require brokers to report transactions involving digital assets, similar to how they report securities transactions currently. This is meant to combat anonymity concerns and improve tax compliance. However, the reporting rules have been delayed multiple times. The AICPA continues advocacy efforts in this area, providing comments to highlight issues and gaps in reporting requirements. AICPA resources Digital assets and virtual currency tax guidance and resources — This hub is your go-to library for AICPA guidance and resources as well as current legislation, IRS initiatives and tax advocacy projects. . Advocacy · AICPA submits additional comments on the proposed Sec. 6045 regulations on gross proceeds and basis reporting by brokers and determination of amount realized and basis for digital asset transactions, March 4, 2023 · AICPA comments on the proposed Sec. 6045 regulations on gross proceeds and basis reporting by brokers and determination of amount realized and basis for digital asset transactions, Nov. 8, 2023 · AICPA comments on virtual currency reporting under Sec. 6045 and Sec. 6050I, Form 8300 and instructions, Oct. 28, 2022 Other resources IRS Digital Asset page — Recently redesigned page to provide the latest IRS information on digital assets Treasury and IRS announce that businesses do not have to report certain transactions involving digital assets until regulations are issued, Jan. 16, 2024 Transcript April Walker: Hello everyone and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the Tax Section. I'm here today with Steve Turanchik. He's an attorney with Paul Hastings in their tax, litigation, and controversy practice. He's also a member of the AICPA's Digital Assets Tax Task Force. That is a mouthful. We are wrapping up this three-part series, I hope you've been listening, but you can always go back and listen to the first two parts, on digital assets here on the Tax Section Odyssey. It's been a wild and fun ride. In today's episode, we're going to focus on reporting for digital assets. We're going to be talking about when that's scheduled to happen, what it will mean, what it will not mean, when it will actually happen as far as we know, at least at this moment, and what you need to do to help businesses and individuals that you work with in this space. Steve, always, especially with this topic, I like to start off at a foundational level. I'm still learning terminology in this world and I bet our listeners are also, but talk to me about what we need to know about Sec. 6045 and 6050I. What are the key things that we need to be paying attention to? Steve Turanchik: I'm happy to address it. Let me say, information reporting is rarely a fun topic. But for our members, it's going to be incredibly important because as information is reported to the IRS and to their clients, the practitioners are going to need to decide how they handle that information that's reported. You've got to account for it someplace. If you don't, the IRS sends you notices asking — hey, where is this information? Let's step back prior to these code sections dealing with digital assets. We'll just talk about them generally. [Sec.] 6045 is in the code because it requires brokers — that is the JPMorgans, the Schwabs of the world — to report when their customers have transactions involving securities. If you have an account at JPMorgan and you sell a security during the course of the year, JPMorgan will report that to you and the IRS on a Form 1099-B that is dealing with the reporting of securities. There was a bit of a hullabaloo when that first came into play so far as information reporting to making sure basis was reported. This was one of the tools in Congress's toolbox to get people who are dealing in digital assets to report those transactions dealing in digital assets. Remember the big concern about this. When you go back to Bitcoin and the Blockchain and the various types of protocols that exist in the world, the concern from the government's perspective, including the IRS, is that these transactions were taking place anonymously. There was no real way to go about tracking these transactions. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has put into place an amendment to [Sec.] 6045 that requires people who are dealing in transactions on the Blockchain to report those transactions to the IRS. We're going to get into what hazards are going to come along with that and the various snafus that we are invariably going to see in a few minutes, but the basis of [Sec.] 6045 reporting was the brokerage reporting. That is, your JPMorgan and Schwabs reporting securities transactions to the IRS to assure that people who had money or had assets on those exchanges would report them to the IRS. Now let's turn to [Sec.] 6050I. [Sec.] 6050I is historically been used to report transactions in cash. That is, greenbacks. If an individual or business comes into an art dealership or an automobile dealership and they bring in more than $10,000 in one transaction or a series of transactions, that trade or business was required to report those transactions to the IRS on a Form 8300 within 15 days of receipt of that cash. For those businesses that dealt heavily in cash, it just became a relatively standard way to go about reporting those transactions. Like it or not, if you're dealing in cash, you're receiving cash and you fail to report those, the penalties can be pretty severe. With that in mind, that's where these two sections come from. Under the new legal requirement, if any person who in the course of their trade or business, it is important to note that it is part of your trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in digital assets in a single transaction or series of transactions, that needs to be reported to the IRS within 15 days. It's not limited to whether it's a taxable transaction. If a borrower is repaying a loan in digital assets, that needs to be reported. If funds are being raised in a capital raise, a venture capital firm, or an investment fund, if they're receiving digital assets as part of an investment, that also needs to be reported to the IRS. The penalties for failing to report that get to be pretty severe. I understand the policy reason for it is that the IRS wants to see more and more reporting about a part of the economy that they believe is anonymous, that it's running under the radar. [Sec.] 6050I was put in place really to combat two different things. First was tax evasion. If you're dealing in cash, it's hard to track. But the other part of it was money laundering. That certainly remains a concern here, which is why the IRS and frankly Treasury wants to root out potential money laundering by requiring those transactions to be reported. The reporting requirement involves obtaining the name, the social security number or tax identification number of the transferor. From a policy perspective, I get why they're trying to do that. One thing that I've seen for frankly clients of mine, a question that routinely comes up, and I know for practitioners these are not the clients they want — but they exist out there — is, hey, Steve, I understand this requirement to report the received digital assets within 15 days, is that only for US businesses? If I locate my operation to the Caymans or Malta, do these rules apply to me? The short answer is the IRS could try, but enforcement is going to be very difficult. You see a light bulb go off in the guys who are in this area. They're like, guess what? I'm going to start a foundation in Malta and forget the United States, which is discouraging if we want to see this infrastructure develop here in the US. But for our practitioners, for our members, when this reporting comes in, there's going to be a deluge of information for the IRS. There will be every incentive for recipients of digital assets to be careful. That is, more conservative and over-report. If your clients are the ones providing digital assets, they are going to need to deal with the fact that the information is reported to the IRS and be able to explain why it wasn't a taxable transaction or if it was a taxable transaction, that they'll need to report it. Remember if the person has, let's say $1,000 basis in Bitcoin and Bitcoin is now at $10,000. When they transfer that in exchange for goods or services, that itself is a taxable event for the transferor. [If it is an] event for the transferee, it depends upon the nature of the transaction. [Sec.] 6045 is, at least in its initial drafting, was extremely broad. [Sec.] 6045 requires any person who for consideration is responsible for regularly providing any service, effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of other person. When we first read that as practitioners, we said that's going to encompass a lot of people that have no ability to comply. It's not just wanted to be exchanges or financial institutions. It could be anyone who develops software, anyone who is validating blocks on a Blockchain. The good news is that, at least in the proposed regulations this past fall, the IRS has said, we don't intend this to apply to validators. We don't intend for it to apply to miners, or for people who have no ability to comply. Rather the requirement to the extent we're looking at one is for custodians to report this. Now, what's troubling about this is you're going to have reports of transactions that may not be taxable. If the assets are moving from my account at custodian A to my account at custodian B, that's not a taxable transaction. The problem, of course, is because of the anonymity of the Blockchain, the brokers are not going to know whether it's a taxable transaction. You