Connect with us

Accounting

IRS forces sale of LLC on innocent co-owner

Published

on

One of the attractive features of doing business through a limited liability company is the protection it gives from personal liability — but that is not always the case, as a New Jersey dentist recently discovered when the Internal Revenue Service sought to foreclose on a dental practice he co-owned with another dentist. 

Dr. William Vockroth co-owned his practice with another dentist, Dr. Thomas Driscoll, via an LLC, and co-owned the physical property as tenants in common. The government sought a forced sale of both the entire practice and the physical office suite to satisfy Driscoll’s tax debt. While Vockroth owed no tax, the district court consented to the forced sale of the interests of both parties.

Under Code Section 7403, the government has the authority to foreclose on the entire property, and not merely on the delinquent taxpayer’s own interest, according to tax attorney Barbara Weltman, author of “Small Business Taxes 2025.” Nevertheless, she was surprised at the decision. 

dentist.jpg

“One of the mantras regarding corporate LLCs is that they give you personal liability protection,” she said. “The government didn’t just go after the delinquent taxpayer’s interest in the LLC; they went after the entire business.”

In arriving at its decision, the court considered Vockroth’s contention that a “charging order” is the only appropriate remedy. The court said that “although New Jersey law allows a charging order as the sole remedy of a judgment creditor, the government is not bound by the state laws of an ordinary creditor when it forecloses pursuant to Section 7403.”

Next, the court analyzed the case according to a four-factor balancing test in the Supreme Court decision in Rodgers:

  • The extent to which the government’s financial interests would be prejudiced if it were relegated to a forced sale of the partial interest actually liable for the delinquent taxes;
  • Whether the third party with a non-liable separate interest in the property would, in the normal course of events, have a legally recognized expectation that a separate property would not be subject to a forced sale by the delinquent taxpayer or their creditors;
  • The likely prejudice to the third party, both in personal dislocation costs and in practical undercompensation; and,
  • The relative character and value of the non-liable and liable interests held in the property.

The court noted that unlike joint tenants or tenants by the entirety, tenants in common do not need to specify their preferred ownership type during an acquisition or transfer of property: “Each tenant in common may transfer his interest without the consent of the remaining cotenant.”
“Under New Jersey law, either tenant in common may ask the court to grant a partition. When it would not be possible for a court to partition the property in such a way that gives each party the requisite amount of ownership stake without great prejudice to the owners, a court may direct the sale thereof,” it noted.

Of the four factors, the court found the second one to be the only one that favored Vockroth, while the others were either neutral or favored the government. 

“As to the LLC, the second factor weighs in favor of Dr. Vockroth,” the court said. “In the case of the LLC the government and defendant disagree as to the extent of state law applicability.”

It said that the government was correct in arguing that New Jersey law will not preclude the court from ordering a forced sale, but the property interests provided under state law were still relevant to the court’s inquiry under the second factor.

The court then found that New Jersey law, which adopts the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, requires the consent of all members in an LLC to sell, lease, exchange or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of the company’s property. Since Vockroth did not consent to a sale, the court found that this factor — the practice being held by the LLC — weighed against the forced sale and in favor of Vockroth. In weighing all the factors together, the court decided in favor of the government’s motion for summary judgment.

“The lesson here is you have to look very closely at whom you’re going into business with,” said Weltman.

Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

on

The accounting profession is undergoing a fundamental structural transition as enterprise finance departments shift from periodic month-end closes toward automated continuous accounting models. By integrating specialized machine learning algorithms directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, chief accounting officers are transforming financial reporting from a retrospective exercise into a real-time operational asset.

The Shift from Periodic Close to Continuous Financial Reporting
Traditional accounting workflows heavily relied on manual data reconciliation, spreadsheet calculations, and multi-week closing cycles at the end of each fiscal period. In contrast, continuous accounting frameworks utilize automated software agents to process, validate, and post transactional data in real time as business activities occur.

Automated bank reconciliation tools cross-reference incoming bank feeds, invoice records, and purchase orders automatically. By resolving transactional variances instantly throughout the month, corporate accounting teams eliminate the traditional workload spikes associated with quarterly and annual closes.

Machine Learning in Audit Trails and Anomaly Detection
Advanced natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning tools are redefining internal audit and financial control environments. Automated systems analyze 100% of general ledger entries, identifying anomalous transactions, duplicate payments, and unauthorized journal entries in real time.

Rather than relying on random statistical sampling, corporate internal auditors can focus their attention on high-risk flags automatically surfaced by algorithmic monitoring platforms. This continuous risk assessment strengthens internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and significantly reduces fraud risk.

Evolving Roles for Accounting Professionals
As routine data entry and manual reconciliation tasks become fully automated, the skill set required for accounting professionals is shifting toward data analysis, system design, and strategic business advisory.
– Systems Governance: Accountants are increasingly responsible for monitoring algorithmic accuracy and managing data integration pipelines.
– Business Partnership: Finance professionals leverage real-time financial dashboards to advise operational leaders on margin management and working capital allocation.
– Regulatory Compliance Management: Accounting teams utilize automated platforms to ensure compliance with dynamic tax codes and international accounting standards.

Core Implementation Recommendations
1. Deploy Automated Reconciliation Tools: Integrate continuous transaction processing modules into existing enterprise ERP architectures.
2. Establish Algorithmic Governance Controls: Implement strict internal testing protocols to ensure automated accounting rules comply with GAAP/IFRS standards.
3. Reskill Accounting Teams: Invest in training finance staff on data analytics, workflow automation, and predictive financial modeling.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

on

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Modernizing Internal Controls: Machine Learning and Continuous Monitoring in Auditing

Published

on

Internal audit departments and corporate risk managers are modernizing internal control frameworks by shifting from periodic sampling techniques to continuous monitoring and machine learning analytics. As operational data volumes increase across enterprise organizations, automated control testing ensures financial integrity, prevents corporate fraud, and streamlines annual audit engagements.

The Limitation of Periodic Audit Sampling
Historically, internal and external auditors evaluated internal controls by reviewing random samples of financial transactions—often analyzing less than five percent of total ledger entries. In complex enterprise environments, periodic sampling methods carry inherent risks of overlooking localized financial misstatements, unauthorized disbursements, or operational control breakdowns.

In 2026, progressive internal audit functions are utilizing automated continuous monitoring platforms that evaluate one hundred percent of financial transactions in real time. Continuous control auditing systems continuously monitor general ledger entries, procurement approvals, and expense reimbursements across all operating subsidiaries.

AI-Powered Fraud Detection and Anomaly Identification
Machine learning models trained on historical corporate financial data excel at identifying subtle transactional anomalies that indicate potential fraud or operational error. Automated systems instantly flag duplicate invoice payments, unapproved vendor creation, unusual journal entry timing, and unauthorized override of authority thresholds.

When an anomaly is detected, the automated auditing platform generates an instant risk alert, allowing internal audit teams to investigate root causes immediately. Early detection prevents minor operational errors from escalating into material weaknesses in financial reporting.

Streamlining External Audit Preparation
Continuous internal control monitoring delivers significant benefits during annual external financial audits. External audit firms can review continuous audit logs and automated control testing documentation, reducing the time required for manual field testing.

This integrated approach lowers overall audit compliance fees, reduces administrative burdens on corporate accounting staff, and provides senior management and audit committees with real-time visibility into the organization’s overall risk profile.

Core Implementation Guidelines
1. Transition to 100% Data Testing: Replace legacy sampling methods with automated continuous audit monitoring systems.
2. Deploy Anomaly Detection Algorithms: Implement machine learning models to identify unauthorized transactions and operational control overrides.
3. Align Internal and External Audit Workflows: Coordinate continuous control testing protocols with external auditors to optimize annual compliance cycles.

Continue Reading

Trending