Connect with us

Accounting

AI in accounting and its growing role

Published

on

Artificial intelligence took the business world by storm in 2024. Content creation companies received powerful new AI-powered tools, allowing them to crank out high-quality images with simple prompts. AI also helped cybersecurity companies filter email for phishing attempts. Any company engaging in online meetings received an ever-ready assistant eager to show up, take notes and highlight the most important talking points.

These and countless other AI-driven tools that emerged during the past year are boosting efficiency in virtually every industry by automating the tasks that most often bog down business processes. Essentially, AI takes on the business world’s day-to-day dirty work, delivering with more accuracy and speed than human workers are capable of providing.

For accounting, AI couldn’t have come at a better time. Recent reports show that securing capable accounting staff is becoming more challenging due to a high number of retirees and a low number of new accounting graduates. At the same time, globalization, the rise of the gig economy, the shift to remote work and other recent developments in the business landscape have increased both the volume and complexity of accounting work.

As companies struggle to do more with less, AI offers solutions that promise to reshape the accounting world. However, putting AI to work also forces companies to accept some new risks.

“Bias” has become a huge buzzword in the AI arena, forcing companies to consider how the automation tools they bring in to help with processing data may introduce some questionable or even dangerous ideas. There are also ethical issues associated with next-level AI-powered data processing that have some concerned that achieving AI-assisted business efficiency also means risking consumer privacy.

To make AI worthwhile as an accounting tool, companies must find ways to balance gains in efficiency with the ethical risks it presents. The following explores the growing role AI can play in business accounting while also pointing out some of the downsides that should be carefully considered.

AI upside: Increased accuracy and efficiency

Accounting isn’t accounting if it isn’t accurate. Miskeyed amounts or misplaced decimal points aren’t acceptable, regardless of the company’s size or the business it is doing. When the numbers are wrong, the decision-making that relies on those numbers suffers.

Consequently, manual accounting typically moves slowly to avoid errors. Business leaders have learned to wait on financial reporting prepared by hand. They’ve also learned that because of processing delays, they may not have the numbers they need to take advantage of unexpected opportunities.

AI changes the equation by improving the speed and accuracy of reporting. AI-powered data entry automatically extracts numbers from invoices and other financial statements, eliminating the need for manual entry and the mistakes that can occur when an accountant is distracted, tired or just having an off day. AI can also detect errors or inconsistencies in incoming documents by comparing invoices and other documents to previous records, providing a second set of eyes for accounts as they ensure companies aren’t being overbilled or under-compensated.

When it comes to increasing the pace of accounting, AI’s capabilities are truly astonishing. As Accounting Today has reported, in the past, the type of robotic process automation AI empowers can be used to drive automated processes 745% faster than manual processes. And AI accounting programs never clock out or take a lunch break. They work 24/7, even on bank holidays, to keep the books up to date.

AI accounting gives business leaders accurate financial data in real time, meaning they have relevant and reliable accounting intel when they need it rather than requiring them to wait until the end of the month to have a report on where their cash flow stands. It also has the potential to give a glimpse into the future by drawing upon historical data to drive predictive analytics. AI can look at what has been unfolding in a business and its industry to plot the path forward that makes the most financial sense. It’s not exactly a crystal ball, but it’s as close as most businesses should expect to get.

AI upside: More time for high-level engagement

As AI began to make inroads in the business world, experts warned it would ultimately replace hundreds of millions of jobs. While the consensus seems to be that AI doesn’t have what it takes to replace an accountant, it certainly has the potential to reshape the profession in a positive way.

The manual work typical of conventional accounting is tedious, tiresome and time-consuming. Doing it well eats up much of the energy accountants could otherwise apply to higher-level activities. By using AI automation for those tasks, accountants gain the resources needed for high-level engagement.

Accountants who partner with AI gain the capacity to shift their role from bookkeeper to financial advisor. Rather than focusing all of their energy on preparing reports, they are freed up to interpret the reports. Delegating data entry and other day-to-day tasks to AI allows accountants to become strategic partners with the businesses they serve, whether as in-house employees or external advisors.

Financial forecasting becomes much more doable when AI is in play. Accountants can develop comprehensive financial models that forecast future revenue and expenses. They can also assess investment opportunities, such as determining the viability of mergers and acquisitions, and help with risk management and mitigation.

Tax planning and optimization will also become more manageable once AI automations have been added to the mix. Automating data extraction and categorization streamlines the process of classifying expenses for tax purposes and identifying expenses that are eligible for deductions. AI automation can also be used for tax form completion, adding speed and a higher level of accuracy to a process that very few accountants look forward to completing manually.

AI downside: Higher data security risks

Accountants are well aware of the dangers of data breaches. Allowing financial data to fall into unauthorized hands can lead to financial loss, operational disruption, reputational damage and regulatory consequences. Shifting to AI accounting can potentially increase the risk of data breaches.

Changing to AI accounting often means concentrating financial and other sensitive data and moving it to interconnected networks. Concentrating data creates a target that is more desirable to bad actors. Shifting it to the cloud or other interconnected networks creates a larger attack surface. Both factors create situations in which higher levels of data security are definitely needed.

Addressing the heightened threat of cyberattacks requires a combination of tech tools and human sensibilities. To keep accounting data safe, encryption, multifactor authentication, and regular testing and update protocols should be used. Training should also help accounting teams understand what an attack looks like and how to respond if they sense one is being carried out.

AI downside: Less process customization

Developing the types of platforms that can safely and reliably drive AI automations is not an easy — nor cheap — undertaking. Consequently, many companies choose the economy of “off-the-shelf” platforms. However, opting for a standardized platform could mean closing the door on customized financial workflows a company has developed.

For example, an off-the-shelf platform may not have the option of accommodating the accounting rules of highly specialized industries. It may have a predefined chart of accounts structure that doesn’t fit the structure a company has traditionally used. It also may be limited in the formats that can be used for financial reporting, which could require business leaders to make peace with reports that don’t fit their personal tastes.

To avoid big problems that can surface after shifting to off-the-shelf solutions, companies should make sure to take their time and seek software that can scale with their plans for growth. Like any other technological innovation, AI is a tool meant to support and not supplant a company’s processes. The process of selecting an AI platform to improve accounting efficiency begins with mapping out a company’s unique process and identifying where AI can boost efficiency. If the platform you are considering can’t deliver, keep looking.

AI best practice: Take it slow and learn as you go

The biggest temptation for companies as they begin to embrace AI will likely be doing too much too fast and with too little oversight. Artificial intelligence is a remarkable tech tool, but still in its infancy. Taking advantage of its capabilities also requires managing some risks.

For example, AI has what some experts describe as an “explainability” problem. Developers know what AI can do but don’t always know how it does it. Companies that feel compelled to provide their clients or stakeholders with a solid explanation of the process behind their AI automations may be limited in how they can put AI to work.

Now is the time to begin integrating AI with your company’s accounting efforts, but take it slow and learn as you go. A solid best practice is to explore what is available, experiment with how it can help your business, and expect to make many adjustments before you arrive at an optimal process. Your accounting efforts will serve you best when they combine human and artificial intelligence.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Tax Fraud Blotter: Sick excuses

Published

on

By any other name; poor Service; a saga continues; and other highlights of recent tax cases.

Rockford, Illinois: Tax preparer Gretchen Alvarez, 49, has pleaded guilty to preparing and filing false income tax returns.

She operated the tax prep business Sick Credit Repair Tax and Legal Services and represented herself as an income tax preparer. Alvarez did not have a PTIN and admitted that in 2019 and 2020 she misrepresented taxpayers’ eligibility for education credits and deducted fictitious business expenses from their taxable income to reduce tax liabilities and inflate refunds.

The tax loss totaled $356,881.

Sentencing is Sept. 17. Alvarez faces a maximum of three years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.

Bangor, Maine: Paul Archer, a Florida resident formerly of Hampden and Orrington, Maine, has pleaded guilty to attempting to evade federal taxes and engaging in fraudulent transfers and concealment in a bankruptcy proceeding.

He operated an online marketing business for software installation, earning several million dollars from 2013 through 2015. After an IRS audit in 2016 assessed a federal tax debt totaling some $1 million, Archer concealed and transferred assets through two LLCs he controlled and began using third-party bank accounts to evade paying the tax debt. From April 2018 through November 2019, he transferred and concealed assets and income by using a series of bank accounts held in the names of Max Tune Up LLC; Stealth Kit LLC; his father; and his spouse. 

In March 2019, Archer filed for Chapter 7. In his paperwork and court statements, he falsely claimed less than $50,000 in assets; a single checking account; no other assets or property interests; no recent asset transfers; and no connections to any businesses or memberships in any LLCs. 

He faces up to five years in prison and a fine up to $250,000 on each of the two charges to which he pleaded guilty. Any sentence will be followed by up to three years of supervised release.

Fort Wayne, Indiana: Rakita Davis, 45, a former IRS employee, has been sentenced to two years of probation and ordered to pay $55,213.61 in restitution to the Small Business Administration after pleading guilty to wire fraud associated with pandemic relief.

Davis falsely claimed gross income for a business that did not exist when she applied for two Paycheck Protection Program loans in 2021. Employed by the IRS when she applied for the loans, Davis lied that she was the sole proprietor of a catering business when no such business existed. She received PPP funds that she spent on such personal items as jewelry, airfare, luxury car rentals and vacations.

Charleston, West Virginia: Business owner Luther A. Hanson has been sentenced to three years of probation and fined $5,000 for willful failure to pay over taxes.

From at least 2015 to September 2020, Hanson, who previously pleaded guilty, did not withhold or pay over some $149,905.38 in employment taxes to the IRS for two employees of his accounting businesses. Hanson owns and operates The Estate Planning Group Inc. and L.A. Hanson Accounting Services; the two employees provided accounting services for both.

Hanson admitted that prior to June 30, 2015, he and the two employees agreed that he would begin treating them as independent contractors. He also admitted that he knew this arrangement would relieve him of paying the employer portion of the employment taxes and of the employees’ withholdings. Neither employee changed their job duties.

He admitted that he knew that neither was an independent contractor while he paid each by check throughout their employment. Hanson further admitted that he did not pay the trust fund taxes to the IRS nor the employer’s share of employment taxes for the two employees each quarter during the arrangement.

The court previously determined that Hanson owed $146,771.37 to the U.S. after his scheme; Hanson paid that amount before sentencing. One of the employees paid a portion of the taxes owed, resulting in the adjusted figure of restitution Hanson owed.

Hands-in-jail-Blotter

Oakland, New Jersey: Business owner Walter Hass, of Hewitt, New Jersey, has been sentenced to four years in prison for his role in a $3.5 million payroll tax scheme.

Hass owned and operated a shipping and logistics company and since 2014 has operated the company under three different names. He failed to collect, account for and pay over payroll taxes to the IRS on behalf of each of these companies from 2014 to 2022, a total of at least $3.5 million.

Hass used company money to fund his personal lifestyle, including the purchase of luxury vehicles, high-end watches and jewelry, designer clothing, tickets to sporting events, home renovations, vacations, water sports vehicles and extravagant meals.

After signing his guilty plea in October 2023, he embarked on a campaign to avoid responsibility for his conduct. He lied to the court, to the U.S. Probation Office and to the government about a purported cancer diagnosis to delay the entry of his guilty plea and his sentencing. Hass fabricated three letters from physicians asserting that he had medical conditions, including kidney cancer, that prevented him from attending court proceedings. Hass did not have cancer and attempted to travel throughout the country and around the world during this time. 

Hass was also sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $3,527,645 in restitution.

Atlanta: Attorney Vi Bui has been sentenced to 16 months in prison for obstructing the IRS in connection with his participation in the promotion of abusive syndicated conservation easement tax shelters.

Bui, who previously pleaded guilty, was a partner at the firm Sinnott & Co. and beginning at least in 2012 and continuing through at least May 2020 participated in a scheme to defraud the IRS by organizing, marketing, implementing and selling illegal syndicated conservation easement tax shelters created and organized by co-conspirators Jack Fisher, James Sinnott and others. (Fisher and Sinnott were convicted and sentenced to prison in January 2024.)

The scheme entailed creating partnerships that bought land and land-owning companies and donated easements over that land or the land itself. Appraisers generated fraudulent and inflated appraisals of the easements, and the partnerships then claimed a charitable contribution deduction based on the inflated value. Bui knew that to make it appear that the participants had timely purchased their units in the shelters, Fisher, Sinnott and others backdated and instructed others to backdate documents, including subscription agreements and checks.

Bui anticipated that the transactions would be audited. He and others created and disseminated lengthy documents disguising the true nature of the transaction, instituted sham “votes” for what to do with the land that the partnership owned despite knowing that outcome was predetermined, and falsified paperwork such as appraisals and subscription agreements. Bui earned substantial income for his role in the scheme.

He also used the fraudulent shelters to evade his own taxes, filing personal returns from 2013 through 2018 that claimed false deductions from the shelters.

He was also ordered to serve a year of supervised release and to pay $8,250,244 in total restitution to the IRS.

Continue Reading

Accounting

ISSB standards adopted more widely across globe

Published

on

The International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation has posted profiles of 17 of the 36 jurisdictions around the world that have either adopted or used International Sustainability Standards Board disclosures or are in the process of finalizing steps to introduce the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards in their regulatory frameworks.

The jurisdictional profiles include information about each jurisdiction’s stated target for alignment with ISSB standards and the current status of its sustainability-related disclosure requirements. 

“Why is the IFRS Foundation publishing these jurisdictional profiles, which set out by country or jurisdiction their approach to sustainability reporting. It’s really because we see this as part of our commitment to provide transparency to the market,” said ISSB vice chair Sue Lloyd during a press briefing. “It’s all very well talking about the use of our standards, but we know that different jurisdictions have made different decisions. They’re adopting the standards at a different pace, and by providing these profiles, we want to provide clarity, particularly for investors who are going to be relying on understanding the comparability of information between jurisdictions, to alert them to the similarities and differences in approach and to describe the extent to which we are achieving the global comparability that we have been working toward with the ISSB standards.”

She noted that the ISSB’s sister board, the International Accounting Standards Board, has also been publishing profiles on how different countries are complying with IFRS. In this case, it’s about sustainability reporting.

The profiles are accompanied by 16 snapshots that provide a high-level overview of other jurisdictions’ regulatory approaches that are still subject to finalization. Of the 17 jurisdictions profiled, 14 have set a target of “fully adopting” ISSB standards, two have set a target of ‘adopting the climate requirements’ of ISSB standards, and one targets “partially incorporating” ISSB Standards. The profiled jurisdictions cover Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, Ghana, Hong Kong, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Chinese Taipei, Tanzania, Türkiye and Zambia.  

Accounting Today asked Lloyd about the United States, where the Securities and Exchange Commission’s climate reporting rule is on hold amid a spate of lawsuits and Trump administration policy on environmental issues.

“What we are seeing continue to be the case in the U.S. is very strong investor interest in sustainability information, including from the use of the ISSB standards,” Lloyd said. “We also have interest from companies who can choose to provide the information using our standards. Of course, many companies in the U.S. in the past have chosen to use the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board standards voluntarily, so that sort of voluntary adoption momentum is something we still see from the company and the investor side.”

“I think it’s also important to remember that the SEC just recently reconfirmed that if information on things like climate is material, there’s already a requirement to provide material information in accordance with existing requirements in place,” she continued. “And the last thing I’d note on the U.S. front is that while the SEC has indeed moved away from their proposed rule, we do see action at a state level, including, for example, in California, where the CARB [California Air Resources Board] is looking at climate disclosures, including the potential to allow the use of the ISSB standards to meet those requirements, so we see progress, but in different ways perhaps.”

The ISSB inherited the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board standards as part of a consolidation in 2022. Besides California, a number of U.S. states are considering requiring climate-related reporting, including New York. Both the California law and a bill in New York address disclosure of climate risks and directly refer to ISSB standards. Other states, including Illinois, New Jersey and Colorado, are also considering climate reporting, and some reporting is also required under a Minnesota law. 

Of the 16 jurisdictional snapshots published by the IFRS Foundation, 12 propose or have published standards (or requirements) that are fully aligned with ISSB standards (such as Canada) or are designed to deliver outcomes functionally aligned with those resulting from the application of ISSB standards (such as Japan). Three propose standards (or requirements) that incorporate a significant portion of disclosures required by ISSB standards, and one is considering allowing the use of ISSB standards. For these jurisdictions, their target approach to adoption is yet to be finalized. Once jurisdictions have finalized their decisions on adoption or other use of ISSB standards, the IFRS Foundation plans to publish a profile for these jurisdictions.   

“The ISSB standards are bringing clarity to investors on the risks and opportunities lying in value chains across time horizons in a rapidly changing world,” said ISSB chair Emmanuel Faber in a statement Thursday. “A year ago, we committed to publishing detailed jurisdictional profiles describing adoption of our standards to complement our Inaugural Jurisdictional Guide. The profiles provide a detailed current state-of-play to investors, banks, and insurers who continue to struggle with the lack of appropriate, comparable and reliable information on these critical factors affecting business prospects. We have seen new jurisdictions joining the initial cohort of ISSB adopters every month, with a total of 36 today.” 

Continue Reading

Accounting

IRS extends deadline on crypto broker reporting and withholding

Published

on

The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service are giving cryptocurrency brokers additional time to comply with requirements to report on digital asset sales and withhold taxes.

In Notice 2025-33, they extended and modified the transition relief provided last year in Notice 2024-56 for brokers who are required to file Form 1099-DA, Digital Asset Proceeds From Broker Transactions to report certain digital asset sale and exchange transactions by customers.

In 2024, Treasury and IRS announced final regulations requiring brokers to report digital asset sale and exchange transactions on Form 1099-DA, furnish payee statements, and backup withhold on certain transactions starting Jan. 1, 2025. The IRS also announced in Notice 2024-56 transition relief from penalties related to information reporting and backup withholding tax liability required by these final regulations for transactions effected during 2025. Notice 2024-56 also provided limited transition relief from backup withholding tax liability for transactions effected in 2026.

The IRS said it has received and carefully considered comments from the public about the transition relief provided in Notice 2024-56 indicating that brokers needed more time to comply with the reporting requirements; today’s notice addresses those comments.

In the new Notice 2025-33, the Treasury and the IRS extended the transition relief from backup withholding tax liability and associated penalties for any broker that fails to withhold and pay the backup withholding tax for any digital asset sale or exchange transaction effected during calendar year 2026.

The Trump administration has been notably more supportive of the crypto industry since taking office, relaxing guidance at the Securities and Exchange Commission as well.

The notice also extends the limited transition relief from backup withholding tax liability for an extra year. That means brokers won’t be required to backup withhold for any digital asset sale or exchange transactions effected in 2027 for a customer (payee), if the broker submits that payee’s name and tax identification number to the IRS’s TIN Matching Program and receives a response that the name and TIN combination matches IRS records. They’re also granting relief to brokers that fail to withhold and pay the full backup withholding tax due, if the failure is due to a decrease in the value of withheld digital assets in a sale of digital assets in return for different digital assets in 2027, and the broker immediately liquidates the withheld digital assets for cash.

This notice also includes more transition relief for brokers for sales of digital assets effected during calendar year 2027 for certain customers that haven’t been previously classified by the broker as U.S. persons. 

Continue Reading

Trending