Connect with us

Accounting

Tax Strategy: The rise of the below-the-line deduction

Published

on

Until enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, officially P.L. 119-21, the availability of a below-the-line deduction that was not the standard deduction or an itemized deduction was a rare event. It was usually done for a specific policy reason related to the particular deduction.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act gave us the Code Sec. 199 Qualified Business Income Deduction. The QBI deduction was designed to provide to pass-through entities a benefit similar to the corporate tax cut under the TCJA. In order to maintain parity with the corporate tax cut, it was decided that the QBI deduction should be below the line to prevent adjustments to other adjusted gross income-based deductions and credits from upsetting the parity that the QBI deduction was trying to achieve

The QBI deduction replaced the domestic production activity deduction. DPAD was in a similar way designed to focus on promoting domestic manufacturing, production and construction. The below-the-line deduction was intended to keep the focus on business and not provide an incidental personal benefit through a reduction in adjusted gross income.

Over the years, certain disaster-related deductions were also set up as below-the-line deductions, usually on a temporary basis. The most recent example of a new below-the-line deduction before the OBBBA was the charitable deduction for non-itemizers enacted during COVID. The CARES Act created a $300 above-the-line charitable deduction for non-itemizers.

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act the next year, the charitable deduction for non-itemizers was changed to not only add a $600 deduction for joint filers but also change the deduction from an above-the-line deduction to a below-the-line deduction. The motive for this change appears to be primarily the budgetary impact of the change, rather than some change in the policy view concerning charitable deductions for non-itemizers.

The OBBBA seems to now have made the exception into the rule. Each of the new deductions in the OBBBA — the tips deduction, the overtime deduction, the senior deduction, the car loan interest deduction, and the new charitable contribution deduction for non-itemizers — is a below-the-line deduction. The motive here, like for the $600 below-the-line deduction enacted for 2021, appears to be primarily based on budgetary concerns, rather than policy concerns.

Four of the five OBBBA deductions are allowed for both itemizers and non-itemizers: the tips deduction, the overtime deduction, the senior deduction, and the auto loan interest deduction. The new $1,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers is logically limited to non-itemizers since itemizers already have the itemized charitable deduction. Although interestingly, and also probably motivated primarily by budgetary concerns, the OBBBA also includes a new 0.5% floor on itemized charitable contribution deductions, creating a new limit on itemized charitable deductions at the same time the OBBBA was creating a new charitable deduction for non-itemizers.

The broader impact of below-the-line deductions

Part of the motive for the move toward below-the-line deductions separate from itemized deductions is likely the fact that so few taxpayers take itemized deductions currently. When the standard deduction was increased in the TCJA, the percentage of individual taxpayers claiming itemized deductions fell to around 10%.

Before the TCJA, the percentage of individual taxpayers claiming itemized deductions was closer to 30%. The increase in the state and local tax deduction limit in the OBBBA and adding a new miscellaneous itemized deduction for education-related expenses could increase the percentage of itemized deduction filers.

Even before the standard deduction was increased in the TCJA, itemized deductions were only benefiting around 30% of taxpayers. Therefore, if Congress wants a new deduction to have an impact on a large segment of taxpayers, particularly lower-income taxpayers, itemized deductions are not the way to go.

If Congress is providing significant new deductions such as the tips deduction, the overtime deduction, and the senior deduction, making those deductions above-the-line deductions could have a significant impact, lowering adjusted gross income and making taxpayers eligible for preexisting tax breaks to which they otherwise would not have been entitled. This could significantly increase the projected cost of these provisions beyond the cost of the provision alone. Such budgetary considerations make a below-the-line deduction relatively attractive for budgeting purposes.

Up until now, these one-off below-the-line deductions have appeared as separate lines directly on Form 1040. Now that we have so many below-the-line deductions, it is likely that the IRS will create a new Form 1040 schedule to address them. Each deduction is likely to be a separate part of the schedule. The schedule is likely to include a modified AGI phase-out calculator for each of the deductions subject to phase-outs, a requirement for occupation codes for individuals claiming the tips or overtime deduction, a Vehicle Identification Number and other purchase details for the auto loan interest deduction, and perhaps even age verification for the senior deduction, although the IRS computers seem to already possess information on the age of taxpayers.

The form of tax breaks that Congress chooses to enact tends to shift in popularity from time to time. For a while, it was to continue to add to the list of itemized deductions. Then, for a while, it was the tax credit, to get a dollar-for-dollar benefit regardless of the tax bracket. Then, the above-the-line deduction became the popular area for new tax breaks to help taxpayers reduce AGI. Next, the refundable credit had a period of popularity to help taxpayers who otherwise could not benefit, since they owed no income taxes. The TCJA made a significant increase in the standard deduction, benefiting taxpayers already taking the standard deduction and at least simplifying life for taxpayers who were now better off with the standard deduction than itemizing.

Now, we have an impressive list of below-the-line deductions from the OBBBA — available to taxpayers whether or not they itemize but restricting side benefits from other tax breaks that might have been enhanced or made available by a reduced AGI. We thought we might get tax exclusions for tips, overtime and Social Security benefits.

Instead, the realities of the budget reconciliation process requirements left us to deal with these new below-the-line deductions and new sets of calculations to see if a taxpayer can really qualify for them. Exclusions might have meant simplification. These new below-the-line deductions do not.

Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

on

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.

What the SEC Proposed

According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.

The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.

Why Investors Are Pushing Back

Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.

Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.

Lessons From the U.K. Experience

The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.

Practical Implications for Finance Teams

Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.

Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.

What to Watch Next

The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.

Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.

 

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

Trending