Accounting

Economists call for trashing the QBI deduction

Published

7 months ago

October 3, 2024

A sizable tax deduction for the qualified business income of pass-through entities faces potential expiration next year. A panel of university economists and one of the most influential think tanks in Washington said lawmakers should either make big changes or let it go away.

Five economists were asked last month at a Brookings Institution event about which action they hope the next Congress and White House will take on the many parts of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that will sunset at the end of next year. Four of the economists called for the elimination of the so-called 199A deduction for pass-through income. The fifth spoke more generally, advocating for “rescinding some of the tax-rate cuts in the upper part of the income distribution,” which is a common criticism of the impact of the pass-through deduction.

Policy experts, financial advisors, tax professionals and their clients may know the deduction better as “the small business pass-through giveaway,” as the moderator, David Wessel, a Brookings senior fellow in economic studies who is the director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy, referred to it on the panel.

“‘Small business’ with, like, quotes,” Eric Zwick, a professor of economics and finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, said to laughter from the audience. “We should be very clear these [are] like, closely held, potentially quite large businesses with, like, very, very rich owners, many of them. So I think we should be very careful about using that word ‘small’ in a value-sensitive way.”

The others advocating for getting rid of the deduction of up to 20% of the qualifying pass-through income included William Gale, co-founder and co-director of the Brookings and Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center; Kimberly Clausing, the chair of tax law and policy at the UCLA School of Law; and Naomi Feldman, an associate professor of economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Department of Economics, who called the 199A break a policy “that was really put in to placate the small business lobby” that “was really done for political purposes.” The speakers pointed out the high cost of extending the expiring provisions of the law — which could hike the federal budget deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade.

“I think the main thing is we’ve got these huge budget deficits, as far as the eye can see,” said the fifth economist on the panel, Williams College Chair of Economics Jon Bakija. “We need to do some things that are going to restore enough revenue to pay for the government. And I think rescinding some of the tax rate cuts in the upper part of the income distribution is probably worthwhile for that purpose.”

With this year’s election looming in the background as the determining factor on what will happen to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on its deadline date at the end of 2025, the economists acknowledged that the voters and, ultimately, the elected officials would get the final say. While liberal and left-leaning think tanks have slammed the 199A deduction as too heavily beneficial to the wealthy at a large price tag estimated to be as much as $608 billion on its own through 2033, right-leaning and conservative groups argue that the policy boosts small businesses and provides parity for the rates paid by pass-through entities as compared to corporations.

Limits on the deduction to, say, business owners with less than $500,000 in total income “would result in a tax increase on one of the major sources of jobs in our nation, directly hurting workers and the economy,” according to a report earlier this year by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The business advocacy organization has called for legislation making the deduction permanent.

However, the complicated existing guidelines relating to the types of businesses that can get the deduction and the levels of qualifying income that make them ineligible has contributed to the fact that there are many entrepreneurs who could have claimed the deduction haven’t applied for it, according to a February report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The available research indicates that “the deduction may have stimulated no more than a modest rise in investment” during its first two years in effect in 2018 and 2019, the report said.

“It is unclear whether the deduction, combined with the temporary individual income tax cuts under the 2017 tax law, has boosted demand for labor in the noncorporate sector,” it said. “The deduction’s complexity increases the cost of compliance for taxpayers who might benefit from it, although it is not clear to what extent. There is also uncertainty about which businesses qualify for the deduction. Some lower-income taxpayers may not claim it because of the complexity and compliance cost. Many upper-income pass-through business owners may claim the deduction, but only with the assistance of tax professionals.”

Amid that murky picture of the impact of the policy, the economists on the panel shared some suggestions for potential adjustments to the deduction.

“You could change the deduction, I guess, if you wanted to keep it and make it cost less,” Zwick said. “You could make it a smaller deduction. But there are lots of phaseouts and phase-ins of some of the rules. The wage and capital requirements there, some of those could be adjusted to basically exclude more firms. I think there are a lot of firms that are on the barrier between the specified service, skilled types that probably shouldn’t get it, versus like other types of firms that, for some reason, like, we think should get it. Those could be tweaked to, like, basically shrink the number of firms that benefit from the preferential rate.”

A shift in focus of the tax breaks for pass-through income could further alter the impact of the deduction, Gale said on the panel.

“The general approach would be not to cut the rate — which is what the deduction does — but to switch it to an investment incentive,” Gale said. “Making a rate cut just is a nonstarter from an efficiency perspective, so making it an investment incentive instead would help some.”

Regardless, the choice in this year’s presidential election between former President Donald Trump, a Republican who has indicated he would extend the 2017 tax bill he signed into law, and Vice President Kamala Harris — a Democrat who has called for continuing the provisions only for those with incomes below $400,000 — will exert more influence than any economist. Down-ballot races in Congress add another layer of uncertainty about the deduction.

“You notice, I asked them what they thought should be done,” the moderator, Wessel, said. “I didn’t ask them to predict what will happen, because if I wanted to predict what happened, I wouldn’t get five economists on a stage.”

The economists praised some aspects of the law, such as limits to the deduction for mortgage interest payments and a higher standard deduction that has led to less itemization across the board. In general, lawmakers ought to “forget 199A and all the bad stuff” so that they can “get all that revenue back” and “start doing the nice parts of the reform again,” Clausing said.

“I’m not sure we can afford the rate cuts, regardless of any silly pledge about $400K or not,” she said. “It’s not clear Americans will even notice their taxes going up. The vast majority of them — they didn’t notice when they went down.”

Accounting

IAASB tweaks standards on working with outside experts

Published

1 day ago

April 25, 2025

Business Finance News

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board is proposing to tailor some of its standards to align with recent additions to the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants’ International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants when it comes to using the work of an external expert.

The proposed narrow-scope amendments involve minor changes to several IAASB standards:

ISA 620, Using the Work of an Auditor’s Expert;
ISRE 2400 (Revised), Engagements to Review Historical Financial Statements;
ISAE 3000 (Revised), Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information;
ISRS 4400 (Revised), Agreed-upon Procedures Engagements.

The IAASB is asking for comments via a digital response template that can be found on the IAASB website by July 24, 2025.

In December 2023, the IESBA approved an exposure draft for proposed revisions to the IESBA’s Code of Ethics related to using the work of an external expert. The proposals included three new sections to the Code of Ethics, including provisions for professional accountants in public practice; professional accountants in business and sustainability assurance practitioners. The IESBA approved the provisions on using the work of an external expert at its December 2024 meeting, establishing an ethical framework to guide accountants and sustainability assurance practitioners in evaluating whether an external expert has the necessary competence, capabilities and objectivity to use their work, as well as provisions on applying the Ethics Code’s conceptual framework when using the work of an outside expert.

Accounting

Tariffs will hit low-income Americans harder than richest, report says

Published

1 day ago

April 25, 2025

Business Finance News

President Donald Trump’s tariffs would effectively cause a tax increase for low-income families that is more than three times higher than what wealthier Americans would pay, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The report from the progressive think tank outlined the outcomes for Americans of all backgrounds if the tariffs currently in effect remain in place next year. Those making $28,600 or less would have to spend 6.2% more of their income due to higher prices, while the richest Americans with income of at least $914,900 are expected to spend 1.7% more. Middle-income families making between $55,100 and $94,100 would pay 5% more of their earnings.

Trump has imposed the steepest U.S. duties in more than a century, including a 145% tariff on many products from China, a 25% rate on most imports from Canada and Mexico, duties on some sectors such as steel and aluminum and a baseline 10% tariff on the rest of the country’s trading partners. He suspended higher, customized tariffs on most countries for 90 days.

Economists have warned that costs from tariff increases would ultimately be passed on to U.S. consumers. And while prices will rise for everyone, lower-income families are expected to lose a larger portion of their budgets because they tend to spend more of their earnings on goods, including food and other necessities, compared to wealthier individuals.

Food prices could rise by 2.6% in the short run due to tariffs, according to an estimate from the Yale Budget Lab. Among all goods impacted, consumers are expected to face the steepest price hikes for clothing at 64%, the report showed.

The Yale Budget Lab projected that the tariffs would result in a loss of $4,700 a year on average for American households.

Accounting

At Schellman, AI reshapes a firm’s staffing needs

Published

1 day ago

April 25, 2025

Business Finance News

Artificial intelligence is just getting started in the accounting world, but it is already helping firms like technology specialist Schellman do more things with fewer people, allowing the firm to scale back hiring and reduce headcount in certain areas through natural attrition.

Schellman CEO Avani Desai said there have definitely been some shifts in headcount at the Top 100 Firm, though she stressed it was nothing dramatic, as it mostly reflects natural attrition combined with being more selective with hiring. She said the firm has already made an internal decision to not reduce headcount in force, as that just indicates they didn’t hire properly the first time.

“It hasn’t been about reducing roles but evolving how we do work, so there wasn’t one specific date where we ‘started’ the reduction. It’s been more case by case. We’ve held back on refilling certain roles when we saw opportunities to streamline, especially with the use of new technologies like AI,” she said.

One area where the firm has found such opportunities has been in the testing of certain cybersecurity controls, particularly within the SOC framework. The firm examined all the controls it tests on the service side and asked which ones require human judgment or deep expertise. The answer was a lot of them. But for the ones that don’t, AI algorithms have been able to significantly lighten the load.

“[If] we don’t refill a role, it’s because the need actually has changed, or the process has improved so significantly [that] the workload is lighter or shared across the smarter system. So that’s what’s happening,” said Desai.

Outside of client services like SOC control testing and reporting, the firm has found efficiencies in administrative functions as well as certain internal operational processes. On the latter point, Desai noted that Schellman’s engineers, including the chief information officer, have been using AI to help develop code, which means they’re not relying as much on outside expertise on the internal service delivery side of things. There are still people in the development process, but their roles are changing: They’re writing less code, and doing more reviewing of code before it gets pushed into production, saving time and creating efficiencies.

“The best way for me to say this is, to us, this has been intentional. We paused hiring in a few areas where we saw overlaps, where technology was really working,” said Desai.

However, even in an age awash with AI, Schellman acknowledges there are certain jobs that need a human, at least for now. For example, the firm does assessments for the FedRAMP program, which is needed for cloud service providers to contract with certain government agencies. These assessments, even in the most stable of times, can be long and complex engagements, to say nothing of the less predictable nature of the current government. As such, it does not make as much sense to reduce human staff in this area.

“The way it is right now for us to do FedRAMP engagements, it’s a very manual process. There’s a lot of back and forth between us and a third party, the government, and we don’t see a lot of overall application or technology help… We’re in the federal space and you can imagine, [with] what’s going on right now, there’s a big changing market condition for clients and their pricing pressure,” said Desai.

As Schellman reduces staff levels in some places, it is increasing them in others. Desai said the firm is actively hiring in certain areas. In particular, it’s adding staff in technical cybersecurity (e.g., penetration testers), the aforementioned FedRAMP engagements, AI assessment (in line with recently becoming an ISO 42001 certification body) and in some client-facing roles like marketing and sales.

“So, to me, this isn’t about doing more with less … It’s about doing more of the right things with the right people,” said Desai.

While these moves have resulted in savings, she said that was never really the point, so whatever the firm has saved from staffing efficiencies it has reinvested in its tech stack to build its service line further. When asked for an example, she said the firm would like to focus more on penetration testing by building a SaaS tool for it. While Schellman has a proof of concept developed, she noted it would take a lot of money and time to deploy a full solution — both of which the firm now has more of because of its efficiency moves.

“What is the ‘why’ behind these decisions? The ‘why’ for us isn’t what I think you traditionally see, which is ‘We need to get profitability high. We need to have less people do more things.’ That’s not what it is like,” said Desai. “I want to be able to focus on quality. And the only way I think I can focus on quality is if my people are not focusing on things that don’t matter … I feel like I’m in a much better place because the smart people that I’ve hired are working on the riskiest and most complicated things.”