Connect with us

Accounting

GASB rolls out new accounting standards for state and local governments

Published

on

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board is juggling a variety of projects to improve accounting for state and local governments as they come under pressure from the threat of reduced funding from the federal government.

“If you’d asked me a year ago, I would have said the idea that they might be losing a substantial amount of federal funding is probably not something I would have worried about too much,” said GASB chair Joel Black in an interview with Accounting Today. “But in today’s environment, it’s at least something they have to consider.”

In late 2023, GASB issued Statement 102, Certain Risk Disclosures, requiring state and local governments to provide financial statement users with information about certain risks when circumstances make a government vulnerable to a heightened possibility of loss or harm. 

black-joel-gasb.jpg
Governmental Accounting Standards Board chairman Joel M. Black

Scott Areman Photography

“I think it’s an interesting confluence that has come about with the effective date of Statement 102 that we issued a couple of years ago on concentration and constraint risk disclosures,” said Black. “That is effective for 2025 financial statements.”

For state and local governments, the federal government is a significant resource provider that has a concentration in some areas, such as local school districts. “We didn’t want all concentrations to be disclosed,” said Black. “We only wanted it when it was a really big deal, when it was more imminent that something could happen, some kind of substantial impact.”

Medicaid funding would also count, and substantial cuts are expected under the tax bill now being considered in Congress

“Medicaid funding in particular is a really big part of state budgets, so the potential for them to be substantial at a state level at least exists and warrants consideration,” said Black. “But then is something going on in the environment that heightens the risk that something bad might happen to that related to that concentration?”

Governments will have to consider if that’s an event worthy of disclosing the risk of any concentration that they have. 

GASB has prepared an update for its implementation guide of Statement 102 and other standards and guidance and it’s expected to be available soon. The implementation guide includes Q&A’s to help people implement standards. There are around 16 new questions and a few amended questions. Most of the questions deal with Statement 103, the Financial Reporting Model Improvements standard that GASB issued last year, which will take effect in 2026. One will deal with implementing GASB’s Compensated Absences standard, Statement 101.

Subsequent Events standard

Later this year, Black anticipates GASB will finalize the Subsequent Events standard it proposed last year. It will probably come out in December. It pertains to transactions or other events that occur after the date of the financial statements but before the date when financials are available to be issued.

“We had research that showed an omission rate of about 30% of things that when we look at subsequent time periods and things we know happened, primarily debt issuances that weren’t disclosed that we thought probably should have been,” said Black. “We figured we needed to do something to improve the guidance to get more consistent application of it. That’s really what we’ve proposed here is to try to just better describe what we always wanted to get out of that, not necessarily add to the guidance.”

GASB will probably be tweaking some of the wording to emphasize significant disclosures such as debt-related events that should be disclosed if they happen after the year ends. 

“We don’t want scheduled debt payments, but other new issuances, other major things happening with debt, government combinations or disposals, and then changes within the reporting, the things we kind of prescribe, and then we have the kind of other things that might be essential,” said Black. “Our hope is that we get more consistent application of that guidance.”

Digital reporting

GASB is also continuing to work on a digital taxonomy of its standards, known as the Voluntary Digital Financial Reporting Project. It’s for governments that choose to voluntarily report their financial information in a more modern, digitized way, as opposed to a typical PDF.

“Technology is changing how users consume that information,” said Black. “Hopefully governments or software providers will allow for users to utilize this data structure rule we promulgate with this project to make sure the integrity of that data is maintained at least contextually.” 

GASB expects to have a proposal out in December, but not the full taxonomy. It will include the initial foundational decisions GASB has made about its approach to the overall taxonomy, as well as select statements and note disclosures with some examples using structured and unstructured data, so stakeholders can provide input. Some examples include a statement of net position, a note disclosure on significant accounting policies, and management discussion and analysis. GASB is developing it inhouse, but it’s also leveraging the expertise of its sister sister organization, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which also has a digital taxonomy based on XBRL technology. 

GASB has formed a Voluntary Digital Financial Reporting Taxonomy Consultative Group to provide advice from a group of experts. They will meet for the first time next month. 

“The due process document will be a broader call for external input into our process, but this is another way that we’re going to be getting external input from some preparers of financial reports, some auditors, different users and technologists,” said Black. 

GASB has also formed a GAAP Structure Consultative Group. “That’s another of our pre-agenda research items,” said Black. “Our GAAP is presented in two different ways. We have dual authoritative guidance. One is the original pronouncements, which is Statements 99, 100 and 101, and then we have a codification that has the same level of authority as the original pronouncements, where we take all those original pronouncements, put them together by topic, and mush them together, the FASB has more of a codification. They only have a single source. They don’t have the original pronouncements anymore, so our research effort is really looking at, does it make sense for us to continue to have dual authoritative guidance, or would a single source be better? If so, how would we, how would we enact that? How can we improve it?”

The research is looking at this so that the board can make a decision, and the Consultative Group is trying to explore the options. “It’s trying to get external input as the staff thinks about, well, what if we did this, or what if we did that, or what if we lost this, and to get that input along the way into our research,” said Black. “The Consultative Group is just a group that they can routinely go to, as opposed to going out in surveys or one-off interviews. They have a group of maybe 15 people that they can routinely go to and bounce ideas off of as they kind of continue their exploration.”

Infrastructure assets

GASB has been working on a project on infrastructure assets and issued a preliminary views document last fall. The comment period ended in mid-January. GASB received 66 comment letters and electronic input. 

“That was a good amount for us, a lot of good feedback, and we’re starting to work our way through that feedback,” said Black. 

He hopes to issue an exposure draft, with another round of due process on a document written more like a final standard in early 2026 with a final standard expected in early 2027.

Revenue and expense recognition

Another GASB project involves revenue and expense recognition, which dates back to 2018

“That’s a big one,” said Black. “I would expect us to revisit the schedule for that one this fall. We’re really trying to take our time with it and make sure we get it right, make it achieve its objectives, but do so in the simplest way possible, the most straightforwardly communicated way possible. I would expect an exposure draft sometime in mid to late 2026, and then we’ll see what kind of feedback we get and how we go from there.”

Severe financial stress and probable dissolution disclosures

In March, GASB began looking for feedback on severe financial stress and probable dissolution disclosures and issued a preliminary views document. The comment period ends on June 30. In  a way, it’s similar to a going concern project, but for state and local governments.

“Our existing going concern literature really combines two things, and it was written largely for the private sector,” said Black. “It mirrors a lot of what the FASB’s going concern literature says, which is, are you going to continue to exist as the same legal entity, or are you maybe not, as a result of financial stress? We have both those concepts embedded in the description of going concern uncertainty. In the private sector environment, maybe that makes sense. In the government environment, that doesn’t always make sense, because governments often legally can’t go out of business. They legally can’t declare bankruptcy, even though they might be in that kind of financial stress that if they could, they would. What we’re trying to do in this project is keep both those same concepts, because we think they’re both important, but separate them, even though it will be in one standard.”

Probable dissolution is continuing to exist as the same legal entity 12 months from the financial statements. Severe financial stress is being near or at the point of insolvency. 

“You may be in both situations, but you can also just be in one or the other,” said Black.

Preparers will need to exercise their judgment to apply the guidance. “There’s still a lot of judgment involved in our proposal that preparers will have to undertake,” said Black. “Then if you find yourself in either of those, then we would have some disclosures that would be required about it.”

So far, GASB has only received about seven or eight comments on the preliminary views proposal ahead of the June 30 deadline. Black expects to have an exposure draft out in probably the middle of 2026, with the final standard anticipated in mid 2027.

He doesn’t see a correlation between the proposal and any dire predictions for the economy.

“We are really undertaking the project largely to try to improve the guidance because of the inconsistency we saw,” said Black. “Some people were essentially saying, well, if you can’t legally go out of business, I just don’t have to think about going concern. Others looked at it and were trying to apply their own judgment, saying, well, it’s a government, so it can’t legally go out of business, but it’s in really bad financial shape, so I’m going to have these disclosures.”

GASB is also planning to hold a series of public forums in the third quarter on its project on severe financial stress and probable dissolution disclosures to hear input from preparers, auditors and users. “In the past, we’ve had public hearings and user forums, and the public hearings were preparers or auditors, and one person that provided a comment letter would come and talk to the board about the things they wanted to add or elaborate on, maybe from their comment letter, and give the board a chance to ask them questions,” said Black. “With the users, we tended to have a number of them in the room, and we would answer some questions and try to talk to them. We’re trying to change that up a little bit and see if we can get even better input by having a series of public forums where we have a few preparers, a few auditors and a few users all in the room.”

GASB is planning to welcome a new board member, Robert Scott, director of finance and administration for the city of Brookfield, Wisconsin, who is joining the board July 1 after Brian Caputo’s term ends on June 30. Scott chaired GASB’s Government Accounting Standards Advisory Council from 2015 to 2021 and was a GASAC member starting in 2011. Caputo recently became associate vice president for finance and budget at Northern Illinois University. 

“Robert is well known to us,” said Black. “He was the chair of our advisory council, the GASAC, for several years and was on the council for 10 years. He rolled off in 2021, so he’s familiar with us. He has a really good background working for a medium to smaller-size local government as a finance director, which he continues to do, so we’re excited about his perspectives being brought to the board.”

GAAP use study

Earlier this year, GASB released a study on the use of GAAP by U.S. state and local governments along with a visual summary of the findings.

“This was classified as another research activity,” said Black. “It was never going to change GAAP in any way, but it was important information, which we hadn’t really done since 2008, on the environment for the board to understand how many state and local governments in the U.S. use GAAP.”

The use of GAAP is driven by the states, Black noted. “There can be no federal kind of requirement for state or local governments to use GAAP,” he said. “States or sovereign entities have the ability to make that determination for themselves and for the local governments within their jurisdiction. 

The research found that all 50 states use GAAP in their financial reports, 74% of counties in the U.S. use GAAP, and 71% of towns or cities use GAAP. 

“One of the objectives of this report was to figure out what the key drivers are of what encourages a government to use GAAP or maybe not, and to develop a model that we can update every couple of years or so, as opposed to having to wait that long, so we can see trends more quickly,” said Black.

Use of GAAP seems to be driven by the size of the state or local government. “The larger the government, the more likely they are to use GAAP,” said Black. 

One reason for that is the public debt markets that are often used by larger governments. “Studies have shown that borrowing costs are lower for governments that use GAAP than those that don’t,” said Black. “I think that encourages larger governments to use GAAP. What you see is some states just mandate GAAP being used for all governments in their jurisdiction, but many states require GAAP, but only for governments above a certain size. That threshold tends to be pretty low.”

Smaller municipalities may be using an alternative like cash basis accounting. 

Accountant shortage

GASB has been dealing with the accountant shortage, which affects both the public and private sectors.  “It’s definitely a problem in our sector,” said Black. “I would argue it probably is more acute in our sector than others. If you think about accounting industries and professions, the Big Four are going to pay more. They’re going to get the accountants they need. … Governments tend to not pay overly well, so I think they’re feeling it as bad or worse than others.”

He pointed to a report by the AICPA, in conjunction with the National Association of State Auditors, Controllers and Treasurers, about the accounting shortage in the public sector. “What they really honed in on was that accounting and financial reporting aren’t valued as much in the public sector as they are in, say, the corporate sector,” said Black. “Anytime they maybe even can increase the budget, they’re more likely to add a police officer or a firefighter than they are an accountant, so the accounting just tends to be not as valued as the other services the governments are providing. Therefore it exacerbates what they’re willing to pay, not really wanting to pay audit firms quite as much. Audit firms tend to want to focus on other sectors.”

He acknowledged that anytime GASB changes GAAP, it’s asking governments to use their resources on something they otherwise wouldn’t have. “We’ve really set a high bar for us to undertake a project,” said Black. “It has to be, in our view, a significant improvement in the financial report, and a significant benefit to justify the cost that we know we’re going to place on governments as a result.”

Therefore, the number of projects on GASB’s agenda is much smaller than it was five years ago. “That’s been a conscious effort,” said Black. “We still want to improve the standards when there’s a real big need to or when we can simplify them.”

The volume of note disclosures has also been a problem. “One of the things we often hear is note disclosures are too long, many pages, but when we did research on that, our research said everybody agrees they’re too long, but everybody has their favorite notes, so there were no obvious removals,” said Black. 

GASB began looking at its conceptual framework and in 2022 released Concepts Statement 7, which says that information should be essential to users, describing what essentiality means.

“We’ve said either a breadth or depth of users should use it in a way that has a meaningful impact on their decision making or accountability assessments,” said Black. 

GASB talks to users and surveys them about how they would use a potential item it’s thinking about requiring as a disclosure, and then takes that information and uses its judgment on whether it might seem to have a meaningful enough impact to rise to that level.

For existing note disclosures, GASB has committed to reexamining them through the lens of Concepts Statement 7. Over the next 18 months, GASB plans to talk to users about all the existing note disclosure requirements related to its pension and other post-employment benefits standards and how they’re being used, and make a determination on perhaps removing some of those that aren’t deemed essential.

Materiality is an important part of that. Black noted that every standard has a materiality box saying it shouldn’t be applied where it’s not material. 

“Oftentimes governments aren’t using materiality, and they’re spending a lot of time accounting for things that just may not be material,” said Black. “I think that this is inherent and makes sense from a government accountant perspective. I get it that we’re stewards of public funds and taxpayer money. All of it counts. That’s really important, but at some point you’re being inefficient with taxpayer money if you’re overcomplicating the accounting by applying standards to immaterial items that, in the end, don’t have any impact on decision making, and you’re raising your cost of compliance beyond what the board considered.

For every statement, GASB goes through a cost benefit analysis, and it’s trying to focus its stakeholders on applying materiality as well. GASB is working with the Government Finance Officers Association on an education effort on the use of materiality for government preparers to minimize some of the burden of financial reporting on state and local governments.

GASB plans to do research on the impact of its pension and other post-employment benefit standards. “How are the users using each of those individual and pension OPEB note disclosures so that we can see if each of them rise to that level of essentiality,” said Black. “Are there duplicative ones? If some users are using disclosure A to evaluate liquidity of pension plans, and some users are using disclosure X for liquidity efficient plans, could we just require one and not both, and everybody’s getting liquidity? Those are the kinds of things we’ll have to think about.”

Cybersecurity risk disclosures

GASB has also been doing research on cybersecurity risk disclosures. “Our advisory council has this as the highest rated issue,” said Black. “Our research started out with how big an issue this is. I don’t think it took very long to get to this is a big issue for state and local governments, and it’s a prevalent cybersecurity risk. Then the research is focused on what role, if any, does the external financial report have in disclosing or including information related to cybersecurity risks? You see on all sides the users do want information on this, but at the same time, they don’t want to put targets on state and local governments’ back. So we’re trying to figure out is if there’s a role. Maybe the external financial report isn’t the place for cybersecurity risk disclosures, and that’s going to have to come through some other channel, but that’s what our research is focused on.”

Over the next six months to a year, GASB may make a decision about whether or not to tackle cybersecurity risk disclosures, and what role it wants to play. 

The threat of ransomware attacks has raised worries in state and local governments. “Those in the bond investment community want to know, the best they can, how prepared the governments are for that,” said Black.

Amid the expanding number of hacks, he has been seeing a shift in the past year with more of a focus less on prevention and more on restoration and recovery. “How quickly can I recover from a cyberattack and be back up to providing services, and not necessarily worried all about prevention?” said Black. “It could be that maybe the disclosures go down a path like that. If cyber attackers attack a water treatment plant or the E911 system, or the camera red lights in a jurisdiction, how quickly can the government get the red lights back up, get the 911 system back up, get the water treatment plant back up? That may be more important than them preventing the attack. If they can really quickly recover, it may not matter as much.”

Video and podcast series

GASB is planning an educational video series on the elements of financial statements for elected officials. “We’re excited about that,” said Black. “Let’s improve the value of the financial report for governments. The report is big and it’s pretty technical, and written for technical people. City council members and county commissioners and state legislatures are not accountants, they’re not technical people. Yet they’re a user of this report, so we are developing a series of videos that break down all the different parts of the report. They’re not going to be kind of talking heady videos, but rather, they’re going to bring up an example of this part of the report we’re talking about, have a whiteboard and telling, in more layman’s terms, what’s the purpose of this report. As an elected official, how might I use this report?”

He hopes to eventually have a series of perhaps 10 videos of five minutes each covering different parts of the report.

GASB has also been producing more episodes of its podcast series, “Bridging the GAAP.” “We’ve been trying to get the word out about proposals like the preliminary views on going concern,” said Black. “That was a recent episode to try to get people to comment and give us their feedback.”

GASB will be providing much more information about its projects through these vehicles.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Accounting

FASB plans changes in crypto accounting

Published

on

The Financial Accounting Standards Board met this week to discuss its projects on accounting for transfers of cryptocurrency assets and enhancing the disclosures around certain digital assets, such as stablecoins.

Processing Content

During Wednesday’s meeting, FASB’s board made certain tentative decisions, according to a summary posted to FASB’s website. FASB began deliberating the Accounting for transfers of crypto assets project and decided to expand the scope of its guidance in  Subtopic 350-60, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other—Crypto Assets, to address crypto assets that provide the holder with a right to receive another crypto asset. FASB decided to clarify the existing disclosure guidance by providing an example of a tabular disclosure illustrating that wrapped tokens, if they’re significant, would be disclosed separately from other significant crypto asset holdings.

At a future meeting, the board plans to consider clarifying the derecognition guidance for crypto transfer arrangements to assess whether the control of a crypto asset has been transferred.

FASB also began deliberations on the Cash equivalents—disclosure enhancement and classification of certain digital assets project and made a number of decisions.

The board decided to provide illustrative examples in Topic 230, Statement of Cash Flows, to clarify whether certain digital assets such as stablecoins can meet the definition of cash equivalents. It also decided to include the following concepts in the illustrative examples:

  1. Interpretive explanations that link to the current cash equivalents definition;
  2. The amount and composition of reserve assets; and,
  3. The nature of qualifying on-demand, contractual cash redemption rights directly with the issuer.

FASB plans to clarify that an entity should consider compliance with relevant laws and regulations when it’s creating a policy concerning which assets that satisfy the Master Glossary definition of the term “cash equivalents will be treated as cash equivalents.

“I agree with the staff suggestion to look at examples,” said FASB vice chair Hillary Salo. “From my perspective, I think that is going to help level the playing field. People have been making reasonable judgments. I agree with that. And I think that this is really going to help show those goalposts or guardrails of what types of stablecoins would be in the scope of cash equivalents, and which ones would not be in the scope of cash equivalents. I certainly appreciate that approach, and I think it has the least potential impact of unintended consequences, because I do agree with my fellow board members that we shouldn’t be changing the definition of cash equivalents, and it’s a high bar to get into the cash equivalent definition.”

“I’m definitely supportive of not changing the definition of cash equivalents,” said FASB chair Richard Jones. “I believe that’s settled GAAP in a way, and we’re not really seeing a call to change it for broader issues. I am supportive of the example-based approach. The challenge with examples, though, is everybody’s going to want their exact pattern, but that’s not what we’re doing.”

The examples will explain the rationale for how digital assets such as stablecoins do or do not qualify as cash equivalents and give a roadmap for other types of digital assets with varying fact patterns to be able to apply.

“We really don’t want to be as a board facing a situation where something was a cash equivalent and then no longer is at a later date,” said Jones. “That’s not good for anyone, so keeping it as a high bar with certain rigid criteria, I think, is fine.”

Stablecoins are supposed to be pegged to fiat currencies such as U.S. dollars and thus provide more stability to investors. “In my view, while a stablecoin may meet the accounting definition established for cash equivalents, not every one of those stablecoins in the cash equivalent classification represents the same level of risk,” said FASB member Joyce Joseph.

She noted that the capital markets recognize the distinctions and have established a Stablecoin Stability Assessment Framework to evaluate a stablecoin’s ability to maintain its peg to a fiat currency. Such assessments look at the legal and regulatory framework associated with the stablecoin, and provide investors with information that could enable them to do forward-looking assessments about the stability of the stablecoin.

“However, for an investor to consider and utilize such information for a company analysis the financial statement disclosures would need to include information about the stablecoin itself,” Joseph added. “In outreach, the staff learned that investors supported classifying certain stablecoins as cash equivalents when transparent information is available about the entities at which the reserve assets are held. Therefore, in my view, taking all of this into consideration a relevant and informative company disclosure would include providing investors with the name of the stablecoin and the amount of the stablecoin that is classified as a cash equivalent, so investors can independently assess the liquidity risks more meaningfully and more comprehensively by utilizing broader information that is available in the capital markets and its emerging information.”

Such information could include the issuer, reserves, governance and management, she noted, so investors would get a more holistic look at the risks that holding the stablecoin would entail for a given company.

The board decided to require all entities to disclose the significant classes and related amounts of cash equivalents on an annual basis for each period that a statement of financial position is presented.

Entities should apply the amendments related to the classification of certain digital assets as cash equivalents on a modified prospective basis as of the beginning of the annual reporting period in the year of adoption.

FASB decided that entities should apply the amendments related to the disclosure of the significant classes and amounts of cash equivalents on a prospective basis as of the date of the most recent statement of financial position presented in the period of adoption.

The board will allow early adoption in both interim and annual reporting periods in which financial statements have not been issued or made available for issuance.

FASB also decided to permit entities to adopt the amendments to be illustrated in the examples related to the classification of certain digital assets as cash equivalents without the need to perform a preferability assessment as described in Topic 250, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections.

The board directed the staff to draft a proposed accounting standards update to be voted on by written ballot. The proposed update will have a 90-day comment period.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Lawmakers propose tax and IRS bills as filing season ends

Published

on

Senators introduced several pieces of tax-related legislation this week, including measures aimed at improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service, cracking down on tax evasion and curbing the carried interest tax break, in addition to efforts in the House to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act.

Processing Content

Senators Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, and Mark Warner, D-Virginia, teamed up on introducing a bipartisan bill, the Improving IRS Customer Service Act, which would expand information on refunds available to taxpayers online and help taxpayers with payment plans if they need it.

The bill would establish a dashboard to inform taxpayers of backlogs and wait times; expand electronic access to information and refunds; expand callback technology and online accounts; and inform individuals facing economic hardship about collection alternatives.

“Taxpayers deserve a simple, stress-free experience when dealing with the IRS,” Cassidy said in a statement Wednesday. “This bill makes the process quicker and easier for taxpayers to get the information they need.”

He also mentioned the bill during a Senate Finance Committee hearing about tax season when questioning IRS CEO Frank Bisignano. During the hearing, Cassidy secured a commitment from Bisignano that the IRS would work with Congress to implement these reforms if the legislation were signed into law.

“I’m happy to meet with the team … and do all I can to make it as good as you want it to be,” said Bisignano.

“My bill would equip the IRS with the legislative mandate to create an online dashboard so that taxpayers can monitor average call wait time and budget time accordingly,” said Cassidy. He noted that the bill would allow a callback for taxpayers that might need to wait longer than five minutes to speak to a representative, and establish a program to identify and support taxpayers struggling to make ends meet by providing information about alternative payment methods, such as installments, partial payments and offers in compromise. 

“I know people are kind of desperate and don’t know where to turn for cash, so I think this could really ease anxiety,” he added. “This legislation is bipartisan and is likely to pass this Congress.”

Cassidy and Warner introduced the Improving IRS Customer Service Act in 2024. Last year, Warner wrote to National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins at the IRS regarding the underperforming Taxpayer Advocate Service office in Richmond, Virginia, and advocated against any harmful personnel decisions that would negatively impact taxpayers.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to get basic answers from the IRS — and in the last year, those challenges have only gotten worse,” Warner said in a statement. “I am glad to reintroduce this bipartisan legislation on Tax Day to ease some of this frustration by increasing clear communication and making IRS resources more readily available.”

Stop CHEATERS Act

Also on Tax Day, a group of Senate Democrats and an independent who usually caucuses with Democrats teamed up to introduce the Stop Corporations and High Earners from Avoiding Taxes and Enforce the Rules Strictly (Stop CHEATERS) Act.

Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, joined with Senators Angus King, I-Maine, Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island. The bill would provide additional funding for the IRS to strengthen and expand tax collection services and systems and crack down on tax cheating by the wealthy.

“Wealthy tax cheats and scofflaw corporations are stealing billions and billions from the American people by refusing to pay what they legally owe, and far too many of them are getting a free pass because Republicans gutted the enforcement capacity of the IRS,” Wyden said in a statement. “A rich tax cheat who shelters mountains of cash among a web of shell companies and passthroughs is likelier to be struck by lightning than face an IRS audit, and Republicans want to keep it that way. This bill is about making sure the IRS has the resources it needs to go after wealthy tax cheats while improving customer service for the vast majority of American taxpayers who follow the law every year.”

Earlier this week. Wyden also introduced two other pieces of legislation aimed at cracking down on the use of grantor retained annuity trusts and private placement life insurance contracts to avoid or minimize taxes.

The Stop CHEATERS Act would provide the IRS with additional funding for tax enforcement focused upon high-income tax evasion, technology operations support, systems modernization, and taxpayer services like free tax-payer assistance.

“As Congress seeks ways to fund much-needed policy priorities and address our growing national debt, there is one common sense solution that should have unanimous bipartisan support: let’s enforce the tax laws already on the books,” said King in a statement. “Our legislation will make sure the IRS has the resources it needs to confront the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid – while ensuring that our tax enforcement professionals are focused on the high-income earners who account for the most tax evasion. This is a serious problem with an easy solution; let’s pass this legislation and make sure every American pays what they owe in taxes.”

Carried interest

Wyden, King and Whitehouse also teamed up on another bill Thursday to close the carried interest tax break for hedge fund managers that Democrats as well as President Trump have pledged for years to curtail. The tax break mainly benefits hedge fund managers, private equity firm partners and venture capitalists, who have lobbied heavily to defeat attempts to end the lucrative tax break. The tax break was scaled back somewhat under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

Carried interest is a form of compensation received by a fund manager in exchange for investment management services, according to a summary of the bill. A carried interest entitles a fund manager to future profits of a partnership, also known as a “profits interest.” Under current law, a fund manager is generally not taxed when a profits interest is issued and only pays tax when income is realized by the partnership, often in connection with  the sale of an investment that happens years down the road. Not only does this allow a fund manager to defer paying tax, but the eventual income from the partnership almost always takes the form of capital gain income, taxed at a preferential rate of 23.8% compared to the top rate of 40.8% for wage-like income.  

Under the bill, the Ending the Carried Interest Loophole Act, fund managers would be required to recognize deemed compensation income each year and to pay annual tax on that amount, preventing them from deferring payment of taxes on wage-like income. A fund manager’s compensation income would be taxed similar to wages on an employee’s W-2, subject to ordinary income rates and self-employment taxes.   

“Our tax code is rigged to favor ultra-wealthy investors who know how to game the system to dodge paying a fair share, and there is no better example of how it works in practice than the carried interest loophole,” Wyden said in a statement. “For several decades now we’ve had a tax system that rewards the accumulation of wealth by the rich while punishing middle-class wage earners, and the effect of that system has been the strangulation of prosperity and opportunity for everybody but the ultra-wealthy. There are a lot of problems to fix to restore fairness and common sense to our tax code, and closing the carried interest loophole is a great place to start.”

Repealing Corporate Transparency Act

The House Financial Services Committee is also planning to markup a bill next Tuesday that would fully repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, which has already been significantly scaled back under the Trump administration to only require beneficial ownership information reporting by foreign companies to FinCEN, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. 

If enacted, the repeal would eliminate beneficial ownership reporting requirements, removing a transparency measure designed to help law enforcement and national security officials identify who is behind U.S. companies. 

“This repeal would turn the United States back into one of the easiest places in the world to set up anonymous shell companies, something Congress worked for years to fix,” said Erica Hanichak, deputy director of the FACT Coalition, in a statement. “These entities are routinely used to facilitate corruption, financial crime, and abuse. Rolling back the CTA doesn’t just weaken transparency, it signals to bad actors around the world that the U.S. is once again open for illicit business.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

IRS struggles against nonfilers with large foreign bank accounts

Published

on

The Internal Revenue Service rarely penalizes taxpayers who have high balances in foreign bank accounts and fail to file the proper forms, according to a new report.

Processing Content

The report, released Tuesday by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, examined Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, also known as FATCA, which was included as part of a 2010 law in an effort to tax income held by U.S. citizens in foreign bank accounts by requiring financial institutions abroad to share information with the tax authorities. 

Taxpayers with specified foreign financial assets that meet a certain dollar threshold are also required to report the information to the IRS by filing Form 8938. Failure to file the form can result in penalties of up to $60,000. However, TIGTA’s previous reports have demonstrated that the IRS rarely enforces these penalties. 

The IRS created an Offshore Private Banking Campaign initiative to address tax noncompliance related to taxpayers’ failure to file Form 8938 and information reporting associated with offshore banking accounts, but it’s had limited success.

Even though the initiative identified hundreds of individual taxpayers with significant foreign bank account deposits who failed to file Forms 8938, the campaign only resulted in relatively few taxpayer examinations and a small number of nonfiling penalties. The campaign identified 405 taxpayers with significant foreign account balances who appeared to be noncompliant with their FATCA reporting requirements.

The IRS used two ways to address the 405 noncompliant taxpayers: referral for examinations and the issuance of letters to them.

  • 164 taxpayers (who had an average unreported foreign account balance of $1.3 billion) were referred for possible examination, but only 12 of the 164 were examined, with five having $39.7 million in additional tax and $80,000 in penalties assessed.
  • 241 noncompliant taxpayers (who had an average unreported account balance of $377 million) received a combination of 225 educational letters (requiring no response from the taxpayers) and 16 soft letters (requiring taxpayers to respond). None of the 241 taxpayers were assessed the initial $10,000 FATCA nonfiling penalty.

“While taxpayers can hold offshore banking accounts for a number of legitimate reasons, some taxpayers have also used them to hide income and evade taxes,” said the report. 

Significant assets and income are factors considered by the IRS when assessing whether taxpayers intentionally evaded their tax responsibilities, the report noted. Given the large size of the average unreported foreign account balances, these taxpayers probably have higher levels of sophistication and an awareness of their obligation to comply with the law. 

TIGTA believes the IRS needs to establish specific performance measures to determine the effectiveness of the FATCA program. “If the IRS does not plan to enforce the FATCA provisions even where obvious noncompliance is identified, it should at least quantify the enforcement impact of its efforts,” said the report. “This will ensure that IRS decision makers have the information they need to determine if the FATCA program is worth the investment and improves taxpayer compliance. 

TIGTA made three recommendations in the report, including revising Campaign 896 processes to include assessing FATCA failure to file penalties; assessing the viability of using Form 1099 data to identify Form 8938 nonfilers; and implementing additional performance measures to give decision makers comprehensive information about the effectiveness of the FATCA program. The IRS disagreed with two of TIGTA’s recommendations and partially agreed with the remaining recommendation. IRS officials didn’t agree to assess penalties in Campaign 896 or with implementing performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the FATCA program. 

“From our perspective, TIGTA’s conclusions regarding IRS Campaign 896 are based, in part, on a misguided premise and overgeneralizations, including the treatment of ‘potential noncompliance’ as tantamount to ‘egregious noncompliance’ that warrants a monetary penalty without contemplating the variety of justifications that may exempt a taxpayer from having to file Form 8938,” wrote Mabeline Baldwin, acting commissioner of the IRS’s Large Business and International Division, in response to the report. 

Continue Reading

Trending