Connect with us

Accounting

House passes bills on IRS penalties and Tax Court

Published

9 months ago

on

The House of Representatives approved two pieces of legislation this week to ensure Internal Revenue Service agents aren’t levying fines and penalties on taxpayers without supervisory approval, and to strengthen taxpayer rights in judicial proceedings before the U.S. Tax Court.

The first bill, known as the Fair and Accountable IRS Reviews (FAIR) Act (H.R. 5346), introduced by Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wisconsin, would clarify that supervisory approval of a penalty would be considered to be timely only if the person who proposed the penalty obtained approval in writing prior to any written communication to a taxpayer with respect to the penalty. 

Currently, an IRS agent’s immediate supervisor provides a signature of approval for the initial determination of a tax penalty. However, an IRS rule under the Biden administration weakened taxpayer protections by allowing IRS agents to shop around for sympathetic supervisors, enabling IRS agents to get approval to apply tax penalties on taxpayers from virtually any other employee. Under the bill, written approval of the penalty must be provided by the immediate supervisor of the person proposing the penalty or another higher supervisory person that the Treasury Secretary may identify. The bill defines the immediate supervisor as the person to whom the individual making the determination reports. 

“For decades, federal laws required that before the IRS can impose penalties on a taxpayer, an agent must first receive written approval from that agent’s immediate supervisor,” said Grothman during the debate Monday. “Congress put this safeguard in place to ensure that penalties are imposed fairly, consistently and with appropriate oversight.”

Grothman continued: “A supervisor’s signature helps prevent the use of penalties as a pressure tactic and creates a transparent record that benefits both taxpayers and the government in collection and appeals proceedings. In recent years, unfortunately, a regulatory interpretation complicated the intent of this longstanding statute. Instead of adhering to the clear requirement that an agent’s immediate supervisor must approve a penalty at the time of the initial determination, supervisory appeal could be obtained at any point in the process and the term ‘immediate supervisor’ was broadened beyond Congress’ original intent. As a result, an agent could propose a penalty without prior review and later seek approval from a wide range of individuals, weakening the transparency and accountability that the law was designed to ensure. The Fair and Accountable IRS Reviews Act restores clarity. It reaffirms that an IRS agent’s actual immediate supervisor must provide written approval at the initial determination of a penalty, ensuring proper oversight from the start. This simple clarification strengthens the taxpayer protections and promotes a consistent and reliable penalty process.”

He thanked House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith, R-Missouri, for getting it passed on a bipartisan basis from the committee before it was passed by the House.

“American taxpayers should not be at the mercy of rogue IRS agents who are handing out fines without reasonable due process,” said Smith during the debate. “At the very least, agents ought to have actual prior approval before issuing a penalty and should not be allowed to go around looking for a sympathetic employee to grant them that approval.”

The bill has been endorsed by groups such as Americans for Tax Reform, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Taxpayers Union, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

Tax Court Improvement Act

The other bill passed by the House, the Tax Court Improvement Act (H.R. 5349), authorizes the Tax Court to sign subpoenas to produce books, papers, documents, electronically stored information or tangible items for purposes of discovery or evidence, prior to a hearing. The bill would also ensure Tax Court judges are held to the same standards for disqualification as other federal judges. The bill would also clarify that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to extend a taxpayer’s deadline where timely filing was impossible or impractical. The bill has been endorsed by the National Taxpayers Union, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

“This bill strengthens taxpayer rights during judicial proceedings before the U.S. Tax Court,” said Smith during the floor debate Monday. “The court will be able to more expeditiously resolve cases as the legislation enhances the efficiency of its judicial review to the benefit of the taxpayer. This will increase the court’s productivity, and Tax Court judges will also be held to the same disqualification standards as other judges. Finally, the court will now have the ability to extend taxpayer deadlines where timely filing is impractical. The U.S. Tax Court is the only venue where taxpayers can dispute a tax estimate without first paying that tax. Taxpayers must stand on equal footing when going toe-to-toe with the IRS. Without the guarantee of rights, taxpayers are put in a situation where the IRS is essentially saying: Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.”

The bipartisan bill was introduced by Reps. Terri Sewell, D-Alabama, and Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas. 

“The Tax Court has a very important impact on everyday Americans,” said Sewell. “It provides individuals and businesses with an opportunity to be heard in court to challenge the Internal Revenue Service before paying a disputed tax. Our committee is always looking for ways to make the Tax Court more efficient and fairer for the taxpayer, and that is why we are here today.  The Tax Court Improvement Act will strengthen Tax Court procedures and practices by making four commonsense reforms. The act will accelerate the collection of documents, expand the types of cases assigned to special trial judges, hold Tax Court judges to the same recusal standards as other federal judges, and allow the deadline for petitions to be extended in certain circumstances.”

She predicted the improvements to the Tax Court in the bill would have a tangible impact on thousands of taxpayers, and would raise $6 million over the next 10 years.

“For too long, the Tax Court has operated under preexisting rules that do not mirror many of the well-established procedures for other courts and rules that are antiquated in their application,” said Moran. “In short, changes need to be made so that the Tax Court process works better for the people that it serves. When a system is slow or confusing, the burden falls on taxpayers, often at moments when they are already under stress. This bill provides practical updates that help the court do its job more effectively, and it helps taxpayers find resolution more easily and quickly.”

Both bills have been sent to the Senate Finance Committee for further action.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Accounting

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

Published

1 week ago

on

August 25, 2026

By

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

3 weeks ago

on

August 15, 2026

By

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

4 weeks ago

on

August 9, 2026

By

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