Connect with us

Accounting

TIGTA spots tens of thousands of unresolved system vulnerabilities in IRS

Published

on

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said the IRS has failed to address literally tens of thousands of security vulnerabilities in both its mainframe platform environment and its security application environment. While there had been some improvement from the beginning of this year, inspectors still found that the majority of vulnerabilities had yet to be fully addressed. 

Specifically, the Mainframe Platform Environment was found to have 80 unresolved vulnerabilities across 18 assets, of which 67 (84% of them) were “overdue,” or “not mitigated within required time frames.” Of these vulnerabilities, 15 were considered critical risk and 30 were considered high risk. Inspectors followed up in July and found that there were now 75 unresolved vulnerabilities across 17 assets, of which 59 (79% percent of them) were overdue. During this followup, four were considered critical risk and 27 were considered high risk. 

TIGTA said that Enterprise Operations personnel are aware of these overdue vulnerabilities and are working to mitigate the risk through a Plan of Action and Milestones, but noted that this seemed to all be in response to inspectors’ findings, as this activity was only begin shortly after they had begun planning for this audit in October 2023. Inspectors found even more grim results when looking at the Security Application Environment. They identified a total of 56,537 unresolved vulnerabilities across 580 assets, of which 59% were overdue. Of these vulnerabilities, 6% were considered critical risks, and 41% were considered high risk. When TIGTA followed up in July, they found there were 43,290 overdue vulnerabilities affecting 570 assets. Of them, 4% were considered critical risk and 55% were considered high risk. 

While one might think all these vulnerabilities are the result of lax cybersecurity, professionals with the IRS, in response to the TIGTA findings, said it’s actually the opposite. The agency had recently transitioned into a new and improved scanning tool, which led to the discovery of far more vulnerabilities than before. While Enterprise Operations and Cybersecurity personnel agree that vulnerabilities persist, they likely would not have found them at all had they not moved to a better scanning tool. 

Further, TIGTA found that Internet Protocol addresses were not always assigned to the correct environments. Specifically, the IRS did not properly assign 123 Internet Protocol addresses to the Mainframe Platform Environment and 62 Internet Protocol addresses to the Security Application Environment. Further, 99 Internet Protocol addresses of the Security Application Environment assets were outside of the assigned range. Lastly, a total of 743 assets used noncompliant configurations across both environments. IRS management was less concerned about this, saying that the IP address range assigned by User and Network Services is not a significant factor in the creation and management of information technology assets.

Management further noted that the IRS inventory system has limitations to the identification of assets. As a result, when an asset cannot be reconciled due to this limitation, it will be placed into the temporary or unknown repositories, sometimes leading to duplicate assets. The IRS is in process of migrating to a new system that will have more robust capabilities and resolve the issue of items being incorrectly assigned to temporary and unknown repositories. 

TIGTA said that, until the new system is functional, assets found in more than one GSS or Major Application calls into question the overall accountability for asset assignment

TIGTA recommended that the Chief Information Officer should: 

1) timely remediate or mitigate all vulnerabilities in accordance with IRS policies; 

2) ensure that assets are assigned to an established group;

3) ensure that systems are in place to reconcile duplicate accounting of assets; 

4) reconcile assets to reflect the operating environment; 

5) evaluate temporary repositories to establish ownership of assets; and 

6) resolve configuration compliance settings in accordance with Federal and IRS policies. 

The IRS agreed with five recommendations and plans to review vulnerability remediation processes, implement zero trust best practices to remove physical assets not properly documented, collaborate with authorizing officials to reconcile assets, and ensure that configuration settings meet Federal and IRS policies. The IRS disagreed with reconciling Internet Protocol addresses to assets to reflect the operating environment. TIGTA responded to the disagreement.

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