Connect with us

Accounting

The effect of the November presidential election on IRS funding

Published

on

Like most federal agencies, the Internal Revenue Service is funded through annual appropriations. However, in 2022 the IRS also received $80 billion of multiyear funding under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. In the two years since the IRA was enacted, approximately $20 billion was clawed back. 

Depending on the outcome of the November presidential and congressional elections, the amount of IRA funding could be reduced further. This article provides a high-level overview of how the IRS is funded and considers how the IRS’s budget might fare after the next election.

Current IRS funding

While IRS funding through the congressional appropriations process has remained relatively constant (fluctuating between around $11 billion to a bit more than $12 billion), since 2010 the amount has decreased in inflation-adjusted dollars. This decrease in funding has resulted in significant reductions in the IRS’s workforce (which reduced taxpayer service and enforcement capabilities) and challenges in modernizing outdated technology. Meanwhile, the tax gap (the difference between tax owed and the tax paid on time) is increasing and was estimated to be $688 billion in tax year 2021.

IRS funding under the IRA was enacted to supplement the agency’s annual appropriations to provide a consistent source of multiyear funding to facilitate improvements and enable better strategic planning. Almost half of the funding from the IRA (about $46 billion) was directed to be used for enforcement, with the remainder allocated to taxpayer service, business systems modernization and operations support. 

Under revenue-estimating rules, allocating money to enforcement raised revenue (about $180 billion) that was used to offset the cost of the IRA (which mostly was attributable to clean energy tax benefits). So far, the IRS has used a good portion of the IRA funding, including to help reduce processing backlogs and overall taxpayer service deficits, and it is estimated that after the $20 billion clawback, approximately $40 billion remains. Under the IRS’s strategic operating plan, enforcement funding is focused on large corporations, complex partnerships and high-net-worth individuals, as well as international tax compliance and high-income nonfilers.

Partisan view of IRS funding

The Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House when the IRA was enacted, but Republicans won control of the House in 2023. While Democrats view the IRS’s IRA funding as separate from the agency’s annual appropriations, Republicans view IRS funding more holistically and have attempted to reduce total agency funding by reducing both IRA funding and IRS appropriations. This effort has been partially successful and likely will continue.

The Biden-Harris administration has proposed increasing the IRS’s annual appropriations, requesting $12.32 billion for fiscal year 2025, and increasing and extending multiyear funding through 2034. 

House appropriators have proposed IRS appropriations below the amount requested by the Biden-Harris administration, including a $2 billion reduction in funding for enforcement, but to date have not proposed additional clawbacks of IRA funding. In contrast, Democrats in the Senate support IRA multiyear funding of the IRS and sustained annual appropriations to preserve gains.

Although Donald Trump has not spoken specifically about IRS funding during this campaign cycle, the candidate’s campaign website, campaign staff and surrogates have said that a Trump administration would use impoundment (essentially, not spending appropriated funds) and would continue plans started in 2020 to shrink the federal bureaucracy.

These broader plans could be used to significantly reduce IRS funding and staffing. Budget requests for the IRS for fiscal years 2018 through 2021, when Donald Trump was president, were lower than prior years.

Even if IRS funding survives the fiscal year 2025 congressional budget process relatively unscathed (for instance, agency annual appropriations don’t take too great a hit and there isn’t an additional clawback of IRA money), the fiscal year 2026 budget process begins in February 2025, which gives Congress another opportunity to address IRS funding during the height of discussions about how to address expiring provisions enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

White House

Extending all TCJA provisions is estimated to cost $4.6 trillion, and differences exist regarding whether offsets should be required. A discussion of offsets surely will include IRS annual appropriations and the agency’s multiyear funding under the IRA. Even if not tapped as an offset for the cost of extending expiring provisions under the TCJA, the IRS’s funding might be an attractive offset to pay for nontax-related priorities. If TCJA negotiations continue into 2026 (or even 2027), which is possible, tax and IRS funding could be an issue in the November 2026 midterm elections.

IRS funding after the election

While no one knows for certain the outcome of the elections in November, four possible outcomes generally exist: Two where one party or the other wins control of the House, Senate and White House, and two where one party or the other controls the White House, but the Congress is either divided or the party that didn’t win the presidency controls each chamber. Each scenario could have an impact on IRS funding, as follows:

  1. Republicans win the White House, House and Senate: There is a high risk that IRS funding will be reduced below levels appropriated in recent years and remaining IRA funding could be completely rescinded. This conclusion is based on recent appropriations proposals by congressional Republicans and Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to reduce government spending and the number of federal employees. 
  1. Republicans win the White House but lose one or both chambers of Congress: The result here is likely to be the same as above. This is because Donald Trump has pledged to reduce government spending and the number of federal employees. Even if Congress enacts a steady or increased level of annual IRS funding with a veto-proof majority, Donald Trump has stated that he would use impoundment to rescind or defer spending.
  1. Democrats win the White House, House and Senate: It is highly unlikely that IRA funding will be reduced (and it could even be increased), and the IRS’s appropriations for fiscal year 2025 and 2026 likely will be relatively steady or even increase. 
  1. Democrats win the White House but lose one or both chambers of Congress: Even though the Biden-Harris administration agreed to reductions in IRA funding in 2023 and 2024, the amount remaining after the clawbacks and IRS investments so far leave little room for concessions. However, IRS annual funding levels could be reduced, particularly if Republicans control the House and the Senate. 

Based on these possible outcomes, the following matrix illustrates what might happen to IRS funding in 2025 and 2026 in each scenario:

Party in control of White House Party in control of the House  Party in control of the Senate Risk of reduction of IRS annual funding levels Steady or increased levels of IRS annual funding Risk of reduction of IRA funding

R

R

R

X

X

R

D

D

X

X

R

D

R

X

X

R

R

D

X

X

D

D

D

X

D

D

R

X

D

R

D

X

D

R

R

X

The November elections are fast approaching. While it’s possible that an individual’s view of the IRS and how it spends the money it receives from Congress will affect how they vote, it’s more likely that the converse will be true — how people vote on other issues will influence IRS funding.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Fraud guilty plea from accountant over $1.4M mortgage loan

Published

on

In a case involving phony documents and unpaid taxes, a prominent Washington, D.C.-based accountant pleaded guilty last week for making false statements on a mortgage application after failing to file IRS returns.

A certified public accountant with expertise on tax compliance and due diligence matters, Timothy Trifilo has held partner or managing director positions at several firms for over four decades. He also taught courses in taxation and real estate as an adjunct professor, the original Department of Justice indictment said. Trifilo was hired as a managing director with consulting firm Alvarez & Marsal earlier this year. 

The fraud allegations resulted from a 2023 purchase, when Trifilo applied for a $1.4 million mortgage on a Washington property. When the unidentified issuing bank advised that they could not locate recent tax returns nor approve his application without them, Trifilo submitted copies of 2021 and 2022 IRS filings to the lender, who then originated the loan.  

Investigators later discovered that, in reality, Trifilo had neither filed returns nor paid taxes for any year beginning in 2012 despite income over the subsequent decade totaling more than $7.7 million. His annual earnings ranged between $636,051 and $948,252 during that time, amounts that required him to file individual tax returns each year.

On documentation delivered to the lender in support of the mortgage application, a former colleague of Trifilo was identified as responsible for preparing, reviewing and signing the falsified returns purportedly submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.  

“This individual did not prepare the returns, has never prepared tax returns for Trifilo and did not authorize Trifilo to use his name on the returns and other documents that Trifilo submitted,” a DOJ press release said.  

A grand jury originally indicted Trifilo in September on seven counts, including bank fraud and failure to file tax returns, as well as aggravated identity theft. His actions led to a tax loss for the IRS of $2.1 million. 

He faces a maximum sentence of three decades in prison for defrauding the lender, as well as one year for failure to file tax returns. Sentencing is scheduled for May 19. 

In addition to potential prison time, Trifilo may be required to forfeit the original loan amount and property acquired through bank fraud, the original indictment stated. He also faces a period of supervised release, monetary penalties and restitution. 

Attorneys from the DOJ’s tax division prosecuted the case, with evidence based on findings from the IRS criminal investigation unit. 

Submission of phony forms and documents have played a role in multiple fraud cases this year, pointing to a pain point in the mortgage process that could end up costing lenders. Problems in income and employment data specifically had a defect rate of 37.01% to lead all underwriting categories between March and June this year, according to Aces Quality Management. The number surged from 23.42% in the first quarter.

Aces’ report found overall defect rates of originated mortgages rising in both the first and second quarters. 

Continue Reading

Accounting

AICPA wants SEC to reject PCAOB standard on firm and engagement metrics

Published

on

The American Institute of CPAs is asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s recently adopted standard on firm and engagement metrics, arguing they would drive smaller firms out of the auditing business and affect companies large and small.

The PCAOB voted to adopt the standard last month, along with a related standard on firm reporting, but the new rules still need to be approved by the SEC before they become official and take effect. Under the new rules, PCAOB-registered public accounting firms that audit one or more issuers that qualify as an accelerated filer or large accelerated filer would be required to publicly report specified metrics relating to such audits and their audit practices. The PCAOB made some changes from the originally proposed rules to accommodate some of the objections from the audit industry and public companies, but they remain far reaching in scope. The AICPA argues that the rules would affect more than just accelerated filers and large accelerated filers and could harm smaller companies and their auditors as well. Under SEC rules, accelerated filers are companies that have a public float of between $75 million and $700 million,  annual revenues of $100 million or more, and have filed periodic reports and an annual report within the past year. Larger accelerated filers have a public float of $700 million or more. The AICPA expressed caution soon after the PCAOB voted to approve the new standards, but said it was still studying it. Now it is coming out firmly against the new rules and urging the SEC to reject them.

“Alternative approaches that better balance transparency, cost, and the needs of audit committees, while continuing to support the quality of audit services and choice of audit providers available to perform public company audits and serve the public interest should be pursued, rather than introducing potentially detrimental unproven regulations,” the AICPA said in a comment letter to the SEC.

The AICPA argues the new rules would hurt U.S. capital markets as well as the investing public, in addition to auditing firms of all sizes. 

“We believe these rules will have unintended negative consequences, including driving small and medium-sized firms out of the public company auditing practice,” said AICPA comment letter. “This would result in fewer firms performing audits which are critically important for smaller and medium size companies seeking to access the U.S. capital markets. Consequently, companies will face greater challenges and higher costs in meeting necessary audit requirements to access to the U.S. capital markets. The PCAOB acknowledges that mid-sized and smaller accounting firms serving small to mid-sized public companies will incur substantial, if not prohibitive, costs in complying with the proposed amendments. The final rules reaffirm the PCAOB’s belief that the rules will disproportionately affect smaller firms.”

The AICPA contends it’s overly simplistic to believe the impact of the rules would mostly fall within the market for large accelerated filers. “Smaller audit firms often serve clients of varying sizes, and their departure from the broader public company audit market could result in a substantial loss of audit firm options, particularly for smaller, less complex accelerated filers,” said the AICPA. “The loss of competition and the reduction in available audit firms could lead to higher costs and less favorable engagement terms for these smaller issuers. A landscape in which smaller issuers have fewer options contradicts the PCAOB’s goal of promoting fair competition.”

The AICPA disputes the claim by proponents of the new rules that competition may increase in the non-accelerated filer audit market as firms exit the accelerated filer and large accelerated filer markets. “This fails to account for the fact that non-accelerated filers often rely on firms with specific expertise and resources,” said the AICPA comment letter. “Further, the firms exiting the accelerated filer space may not be able to effectively redeploy their capacity to the non-accelerated filer market. In fact, their exit could lead to a loss of specialized services and a further concentration of resources in the larger end of audit firms, making it harder for non-accelerated filers to secure high-quality, affordable audits.”

The AICPA disagrees with predictions that profitable firms in the larger audit markets could expand their market share against the Big Four. “The resources required to absorb and integrate such capacity are substantial, and many firms may not have the operational flexibility to do so without significant strain on their existing clients and resources,” said the AICPA comment letter. “This further risks driving up audit costs for smaller and mid-sized issuers, which are often less agile and unable to absorb such change without significant disruption.”

The Institute is also concerned about the use of performance metrics within the PCAOB’s inspection and enforcement program, and how they might drive up the risk of enforcement for minor, unintentional reporting errors. It said the PCAOB rejected calls for a threshold based on the severity of reporting errors. The PCAOB declined a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Aiwyn raises $113M in funding from KKR, Bessemer

Published

on

Aiwyn, a provider of technology solutions for accountants and CPA firms, has closed a $113 million funding round.

The money will help the company continue its evolution from its original focus on payments and collections for accounting firms into a more comprehensive tool for practice management.

Among other things, that will include building a universal client experience portal, where accountants can access all of their engagements in one place.

Justin Adams, CEO of Aiwyn

Aiwyn CEO Justin Adams

The funding will also be used to accelerate product development on both the company’s practice management platform, and on a tax solution that it is working on.

“Aiwyn is committed to empowering CPA firms to elevate their operations and client relationships,” said chairman and CEO Justin Adams, in a statement. “With this investment, we are poised to redefine how firms manage their operations from the CRM to the general ledger, while setting a new benchmark for client experiences. For too long, firms have had to decide between a legacy vendor or modern point solutions. We are proud that Aiwyn is a trusted platform for CPA firms.”

The round was led by global investment firm KKR and Bessemer Venture Partners. KKR is funding this investment primarily from its Next Generation Technology III Fund.

“The accounting industry represents a large market that has long been served by legacy players. Aiwyn is solving a clear functionality gap in the market with a solution that is easily adopted and rapidly delivers tangible enhancements to the customer experience, most noticeably through significant reductions in days sales outstanding,” said Jackson Hart, a principal on KKR’s technology growth team, in a statement.

“Aiwyn’s product suite is already quite impressive, but the company is really just getting started on its quest to deliver compelling technology to the accounting industry,” added Bessemer partner Jeremy Levine, in a statement.

Cooley LLP served as legal advisor to Aiwyn; Latham & Watkins LLP served as legal advisor to KKR; and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP served as legal advisor to Bessemer.

Continue Reading

Trending