Connect with us

Accounting

FASB issues standard on income statement expenses sought by investors

Published

on

The Financial Accounting Standards Board released an accounting standards update Monday to improve financial reporting by requiring public companies to disclose, in their interim and annual reporting periods, more information about certain expenses in the notes to financial statements.

The standard comes in response to demand from investors for more detailed, disaggregated information about expenses.

“This has been an effort that we’ve been working on for quite some time, certainly prior to my tenure, but it’s been a high priority by investors for a long period of time,” FASB board member Fred Cannon told Accounting Today. “It was something we heard both in 2016 and 2021 in our agenda outreach, that it was their highest priority during this time period, and we had to work with all stakeholders to come up with what I believe is a practical solution that provides critical information to investors. From my standpoint, it’s exciting to get this moving forward and find something that is both workable but provides critical information.”

During the agenda consultation and other outreach, investors told FASB that expense information is critically important in understanding a company’s performance, assessing its prospects for future cash flows, and comparing its performance over time and with that of other companies. They indicated that more granular expense information would help them better understand an entity’s cost structure and forecasting future cash flows.

Financial Accounting Standards Board offices with new FASB logo sign.jpg
FASB offices

Patrick Dorsman/Financial Accounting Foundation

“This project was one of the highest priority projects cited by investors in our extensive outreach with them as part of our 2021 agenda consultation initiative,” said FASB chair Richard Jones in a statement. “We heard time and again from investors that additional expense detail is fundamental to understanding the performance of an entity and we believe that this standard is a practical way of providing that detail.”

The ASU addresses this feedback by requiring public companies to disclose, in the notes to financial statements, specified information about certain costs and expenses at each interim and annual reporting period. Specifically, they will be required to:

1. Disclose the amounts of (a) purchases of inventory; (b) employee compensation; (c) depreciation; (d) intangible asset amortization; and (e) depreciation, depletion, and amortization recognized as part of oil- and gas-producing activities (or other amounts of depletion expense) included in each relevant expense caption.
2. Include certain amounts that are already required to be disclosed under current GAAP in the same disclosure as the other disaggregation requirements.
3. Disclose a qualitative description of the amounts remaining in relevant expense captions that are not separately disaggregated quantitatively.
4. Disclose the total amount of selling expenses and, in annual reporting periods, an entity’s definition of selling expenses.

“Essentially, what the standard will do is it will require firms to break out in a footnote certain components of the income statement line items including compensation, purchase of inventory, depreciation, depletion and amortization, to the extent that those are included in that line item on the income statement,” said Cannon. “We expect things like cost of sales, cost of goods sold, SG&A [selling, general and administrative expenses], research and development to be broken out in tabular format on a quarterly basis with these key key components. The reason this is so important to investors is to be able to put this into their urban models, and have better sense and better ability to forecast future cash flows with the trends they see in these disparate items that are currently aggregated. We have heard consistently from investors how critical this information is.”

The extra reporting may be hard work for financial statement preparers as well. “We’ve also heard, to be honest, from preparers, that it can be difficult to prepare, and so we really spent a long period of time making sure that this is operational to preparers, as well as providing critical information to users,” said Cannon.

The degree of difficulty will probably differ, depending on the company, but it may be hardest for manufacturing companies that do business around the world. 

“We heard throughout this process that this first it will vary significantly across different preparers,” said Cannon. “Some preparers told us this is relatively straightforward. Others, on the other hand, especially manufacturers of global operations that perhaps have been acquiring companies throughout the globe, this could be very difficult and costly. The board went into this with our eyes wide open that this wasn’t going to be a cost-free exercise for preparers. But the decision we came up with was that this information is so critical to users that we would move ahead with the standard. At the same time, since the exposure draft, we underwent a number of changes in order to address the cost concerns from preparers.”

One of the biggest changes involved the cost of goods sold. “Perhaps the most significant was on the inventory issue,: said Cannon. “Cost of goods sold would have had a two-step disaggregation in the exposure draft, and we simplified that to one step that would just break out purchases of inventory as well as compensation, depreciation and amortization. We heard from preparers that that would be much more straightforward than our initial proposal, especially manufacturers. And we heard from users that in some ways, it would be more intuitive information that they would be getting.”

FASB also decided to give more time for implementing the new standard and didn’t require a retrospective approach to look back for information.

The amendments in the ASU are effective for annual reporting periods starting after Dec. 15, 2026, and interim reporting periods beginning after Dec. 15, 2027, although early adoption is permitted. It will  be effective for the 2027 annual 10-K for calendar year reporters and then it will be required for each interim period following going forward. 

For users of financial statements such as investors and financial analysts, the adjustment shouldn’t be difficult for forecasting future cash flow. “I think the way we structured this for users, it’s going to be fairly straightforward,” said Cannon, who was formerly a sell-side analyst and research director. Many analysts already have a model in Excel for items like cost of goods sold. “They’re going to have to insert three or four more lines into their Excel spreadsheet, and these breakouts will aggregate to that number,” said Cannon. “It’s something that investors have been saying for a significant amount of time that would be useful”

Eventually their forecasting abilities may improve as a result of the standard. “Their accuracy in terms of improving their forecasts of, say, cost of sales will take time to improve, because they won’t initially see the trends in compensation and in these other line items,” said Cannon. “But over time, as those trends develop, they’ll improve their ability to better forecast those line items on the income statement.”

In addition to the ASU, FASB is issuing a FASB in Focus summary of the new standard and two videos, one short and the other more in depth that walks through some of the illustrative examples in the ASU about how the new standard works in practice. The ASU and other educational materials are available at www.fasb.org. Cannon does not believe it will require a great deal of training to implement the new standard, but accounting technology systems will need to be updated.

While FASB is no longer trying to converge its U.S. GAAP standards with the International Accounting Standards Board’s International Financial Reporting Standards, the two boards are following some similar aspects in terms of disaggregation and the update to IAS 18 (which has been superseded by IFRS 15) is scheduled for implementation in the same timeframe that FASB’s new standard is implemented. 

“Theirs is a little bit different,” said Cannon. “It does not include purchase of inventory, so that doesn’t have to be broken out. In addition, they have a different kind of format for the information to be disclosed, but it does include breakouts in compensation, amortization and depreciation, so there are some similarities and the timeframe is similar.”

The IASB standard also goes a bit further by changing the income statement presentation, while FASB’s is a disclosure-only project.

The new standard may help investors analyze the impact of inflation and other factors, such as increased tariffs, by disaggregating items like purchases of inventory. 

“Inflation is tricky to forecast, but it certainly will give investors a better ability to deal with inflationary aspects of the income statement and how they impact the overall earnings of the company,” said Cannon.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Tax Fraud Blotter: Big plans

Published

on

What becomes of the broken-hearted; the earth moved; Kreative accounting; and other highlights of recent tax cases.

Providence, Rhode Island: Four Florida residents have been convicted and sentenced for what authorities called one of the largest schemes to defraud CARES Act programs.

The defendants defrauded various federally funded programs of more than $4.8 million, and each of the defendants pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. The schemes involved obtaining and using stolen ID information to submit fraudulent applications to multiple state unemployment agencies, including the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, and to submit fraudulent Economic Injury Disaster Loans and Paycheck Protection Program loan applications. The defendants also submitted fraudulent applications in the names of other persons to federal and state agencies to obtain tax refunds, stimulus payments, and disaster relief funds and loans.

The scheme involved using the stolen information to open bank accounts to receive, deposit and transfer fraudulently obtained government benefits and payments and to obtain debit cards to withdraw the money.

Sentenced were Florida residents Tony Mertile, of Miramar, identified in court documents as the leader of the conspiracy, to six years in prison; Junior Mertile, of Pembroke Pines, sentenced to 54 months; Allen Bien-Aime, of Lehigh Acres, to four years; and James Legerme, of Sunrise, to four years. All four were also sentenced to three years of supervised release to follow their prison terms.

The government moved to forfeit a total of $4,857,191, or $1,214,294.75 apiece, proceeds of the conspiracy. The defendants have also forfeited hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of Rolex watches and assorted jewelry and more than $1.1 million in cash. Each defendant is also liable for $4,456,927.36 in restitution to defrauded agencies and financial intuitions.

Raleigh, North Carolina: Michon Griffin, 46, who engaged as a money mule (a.k.a. middleman) in an international romance scheme, has been sentenced to two years in prison and three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering and to making false statements on her 1040.

Between 2021 to 2023, Griffin received more than $2 million from the scheme that she deposited into fictitious bank accounts that she controlled. She converted the money to virtual currency and wired the funds to overseas accounts controlled by her co-conspirators in Nigeria.

Griffin received some $300,000 from the romance fraud, which she did not report as income on her 1040 for 2021.

She was also ordered to pay $109,119 in restitution to the IRS.

Las Vegas: Tax preparer Keisy Altagracia Sosa has pleaded guilty to preparing false income tax returns.

Sosa has operated the tax prep business National Tax Service, and from 2016 to 2021 prepared and filed false federal returns for clients. These returns included falsely claimed dependents, and fictitious Schedule A and Schedule C expenses such as sales taxes paid and unreimbursed employee expenses.

Sosa continued to prepare false returns even after the IRS notified her that her returns appeared inaccurate and informed her that she may not be meeting due diligence requirements. 

Sosa caused at least $550,000 in tax loss to the IRS.

Sentencing is June 11. She faces up to three years in prison, as well as a period of supervised release and monetary penalties. 

Hands-in-jail-Blotter

Elk Mound, Wisconsin: Business owner Deena M. Hintz, of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, has been sentenced to a year in prison for failure to pay employment taxes.

Hintz, who pleaded guilty in December, owned and operated Jade Excavation and Trucking for nearly 10 years and at times had up to 15 employees. From 2017 to 2021, Hintz deducted more than $400,000 in federal employment taxes from employees’ pay and, instead of paying those taxes to the government, kept the money.

She was also ordered to pay $482,185.46 in restitution.

Littleton, Colorado: Tax preparer Thuan Bui, 60, has been sentenced to three years in prison and a year of supervised release and ordered to pay a $50,000 fine after pleading guilty to one count of aiding or assisting in preparation of false documents.

From about 2016 to 2021, Bui operated a tax prep business under several names, lying to clients that he was a CPA. On hundreds of returns, Bui overstated or fabricated expenses on Schedules C.

Philadelphia: Resident Joseph LaForte has been sentenced to 15 and a half years in prison for defrauding investors, conspiring to defraud the IRS, filing false tax returns, employment tax fraud, wire fraud, obstruction and other charges.

LaForte defrauded investors using a fraudulent investment vehicle known as Par Funding. Along with conspirators, he caused a loss to investors of more than $288 million.

He and conspirators diverted some $20 million in taxable income from Par Funding to another entity controlled by LaForte and nominally owned by another, then filed returns that did not report this income; he also received more than $9 million in kickbacks from a customer of Par Funding and did not report this income to the IRS. He paid off-the-books, cash wages to some employees, failing to report these wages to the IRS and not paying employment taxes.

The federal tax loss exceeds $8 million. He also caused $1.6 million in state tax loss to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue by falsely reporting that he and his wife were residents of Florida from 2013 through 2019 when they lived in Pennsylvania.

Hampton Roads, Virginia: Two area residents have pleaded guilty to their roles in a refund scheme involving pandemic relief credits.

Between October 2022 and May 2023, Kendra Michelle Eley of Norfolk, Virginia, filed eight 941s for Kreative Designs by Kendra LLC using the EIN assigned to another company, Kendra Cleans Maid Service. These forms covered four tax periods in 2020 and four in 2021. On each of the forms, Eley falsely reported wages paid and federal tax withholdings for 18 purported employees, knowing there were no such employees.

For the four forms filed for 2021, Eley claimed false sick and family leave credits and Employee Retention Credits, totaling some $975,000. In December 2022, the IRS issued two refund checks payable to the cleaning company totaling $649,050.

That same month, Eley and Rejohn Isaiah Whitehead, of Portsmouth, Virginia, opened a business checking account in the name of Kendra Cleans; signatories on the account were Eley and Whitehead. The two falsely represented the nature and extent of the business, including that it had 16 employees and that the average pay of each was $2,000. Eley funded the account by depositing one of the refund checks in the amount of $389,640. In January 2023, Eley wrote Whitehead two checks from the account totaling $60,000.

Whitehead’s sentencing is June 26 and Eley’s is July 9. They each face up to 10 years in prison.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Accountants tackle tariff increases after ‘Liberation Day’

Published

on

President Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on countries around the world is likely to drive demand for accounting experts and consultants to help companies adjust and forecast the ever-changing percentages and terms.

On April 2, which Trump dubbed “Liberation Day,” he announced a raft of reciprocal tariffs of varying percentages on trading partners across the globe and signed an executive order to put the import taxes into effect. Finance executives have been gaming out how to respond to the potential tariffs that Trump has been threatening to impose since before he was re-elected, far exceeding those he actually levied during his first term.

“A lot of CFOs are thinking they are going to pass along the tariffs to their customer base, and about another half are thinking we’re going to absorb it and be more creative in other ways we can save money inside our company,” said Tom Hood, executive vice president for business engagement and growth at the AICPA & CIMA. 

The AICPA & CIMA’s most recent quarterly economic outlook survey in early March polled a group of business executives who are also CPAs and found that 85% said tariffs were creating uncertainty in their business plans, while 14% of the business execs saw potential positive impacts for their business from the prospect of tariffs as increased cost of competing products would benefit them, and 59% saw potential negative impacts to their businesses from the prospect of tariffs. This in turn has led to a dimming outlook on the economy among the executives polled.

“CFOs in our community are telling us that, effectively, they’re looking at this a lot like what happened over COVID with a big disruption out of nowhere,” said Hood. “This one, they could see it coming. But the point is they had to immediately pivot into forecasting and projection with basically forward-looking financial analysis to help their companies, CEOs, etc., plan for what could be coming next. This is true for firms who are advising clients. They might be hired to do the planning in an outsourced way, if the company doesn’t have the finance talent inside to do that.”

The tariffs are not set in stone, and other countries are likely to continue to negotiate them with the U.S., as Canada and Mexico have been doing in recent months.

“The one thing that I think we can all count on is a certain amount of uncertainty in this process, at least for the next several months,” said Charles Clevenger, a principal at UHY Consulting who specializes in supply chain and procurement strategy. “It’s hard to tell if it’s going to go beyond that or not, but it certainly feels that way.”

Accountants will need to make sure their companies and clients stay compliant with whatever conditions are imposed by the U.S. and its trading partners. “This is a more complex tariff environment than most companies have experienced in the past, or that seems to be where we’re headed, and so ensuring compliance is really important,” said Clevenger.

Big Four firms are advising caution among their clients.

“Our point of view is we’re advising all of our clients to do a few things right out of the gate,” said Martin Fiore, EY Americas deputy vice chair of tax, during a webinar Thursday. “Model and analyze the trade flows. Look at your supply chain structures. Understand those and execute scenario planning on supply chain structures that could evolve in new environments. That is really important: the ability for companies to address the questions they’re getting from their C-suite, from their stakeholders, is critical. Every company is in a different spot according to the discussions we’ve had. We just are really emphasizing, with all the uncertainty, know your structure, know your position, have modeling put in place, so as we go through the next rounds of discussions over many months, you have an understanding of your structure.”

Scenario planning will be especially important amid all the unpredictability for companies large and small. “They’re going to be looking at all the different countries they might have supply chains in,” said Hood. “And then even the smaller midsized companies that might not be big, giant global companies, they might be supplying things to a big global company, and if they’re in part of that supply chain, they’ll be impacted through this whole cycle as well.”

Accountants will have to factor the extra tariffs and import taxes into their costs and help their clients decide whether to pass on the costs to customers, while also keeping an eye out for pricing among their competitors and suppliers.

“It’s just like accounting for any goods that you’re purchasing,” said Hood. “They often have tariffs and taxes built into them at different levels. I think the difference is these could be bigger and they could be more uncertain, because we’re not even sure they’re going to stick until you see the response by the other countries and the way this is absorbed through the market. I think we’re going through this period of deeper uncertainty. Even though they’re announced, we know that the administration has a tendency to negotiate, so I’m sure we’re going to see this thing evolve, probably in the next 30 days or whatever. The other thing our CFOs are reminding us of is that the stock market is not the economy.”

Amid the market fluctuations, companies and their accountants will need to watch closely as the rules and tariff rates fluctuate and ensure they are complying with the trading rules. “Do we have country of origin specified properly?” said Clevenger. “Are we completing the right paperwork? When there are questions, are we being responsive? Are we close to our broker? Are we monitoring our customs entries and all the basic things that we need to do? That’s more important now than it has been in the past because of this increase in complexity.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

How to use opportunity zone tax credits in the ‘Heartland’

Published

on

A tax credit for investments in low-income areas could spur long-term job creation in overlooked parts of the country — with the right changes to its rules, according to a new book.

The capital gains deferral and exclusions available through the “opportunity zones” credit represent one of the few areas of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that drew support from both Republicans and Democrats. The impact of the credit, though, has proven murky in terms of boosting jobs and economic growth in the roughly 7,800 Census tracts qualifying based on their rates of poverty or median family incomes. 

Altering the criteria to focus the investments on “less traditional real estate and more innovation infrastructure” and ensuring they reach more places outside of New York and California could “refine the where and the what” of the credit, said Nicholas Lalla, the author of “Reinventing the Heartland: How One City’s Inclusive Approach to Innovation and Growth Can Revive the American Dream” (Harper Horizon). A senior fellow at an economic think tank called Heartland Forward and the founder of Tulsa Innovation Labs, Lalla launched the book last month. For financial advisors and their clients, the key takeaway from the book stems from “taking a civic minded view of investment” in untapped markets across the country, he said in an interview.

“I don’t want to sound naive. I know that investors leveraging opportunity zones want to make money and reduce their tax liability, but I would encourage them to do a few additional things,” Lalla said. “There are communities that need investment, that need regional and national partners to support them, and their participation can pay dividends.”

READ MORE: Unlock opportunities for tax incentives in opportunity zones

A call to action

In the book, Lalla writes about how the Innovation Labs received $200 million in fundraising through public and private investments for projects like a startup unmanned aerial vehicle testing site in the Osage Nation called the Skyway36 Droneport and Technology Innovation Center. Such collaborations carry special relevance in an area like Tulsa, Oklahoma, which has a history marked by the wealth ramifications of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 and the government’s forced relocation of Native American tribes in the Trail of Tears, Lalla notes.

“This book is a call to action for the United States to address one of society’s defining challenges: expanding opportunity by harnessing the tech industry and ensuring gains spread across demographics and geographies,” he writes. “The middle matters, the center must hold, and Heartland cities need to reinvent themselves to thrive in the innovation age. That enormous project starts at the local level, through place-based economic development, which can make an impact far faster than changing the patterns of financial markets or corporate behavior. And inclusive growth in tech must start with the reinvention of Heartland cities. That requires cities — civic ecosystems, not merely municipal governments — to undertake two changes in parallel. The first is transitioning their legacy economies to tech-based ones, and the second is shifting from a growth mindset to an inclusive-growth mindset. To accomplish both admittedly ambitious endeavors, cities must challenge local economic development orthodoxy and readjust their entire civic ecosystems for this generational project.”

READ MORE: Relief granted to opportunity zone investors

Researching the shortcomings

And that’s where an “opportunity zones 2.0” program could play an important role in supporting local tech startups, turning midsized cities into innovation engines and collaborating with philanthropic organizations or the federal, state and local governments, according to Lalla. 

In the first three years of the credit alone, investors poured $48 billion in assets into the “qualified opportunity funds” that get the deferral and exclusions for certain capital gains, according to a 2023 study by the Treasury Department. However, those assets flowed disproportionately to large metropolitan areas: Almost 86% of the designated Census tracts were in cities, and 95% of the ones receiving investments were in a sizable metropolis. 

Other research suggested that opportunity-zone investments in metropolitan areas generated a 3% to 4.5% jump in employment, compared to a flat rate in rural places, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Tax Foundation.

“It creates a strong incentive for taxpayers to make investments that will appreciate greatly in market value,” Tax Foundation President Emeritus Scott Hodge wrote in the analysis, “Opportunity Zones ‘Make a Good Return Greater,’ but Not for Poor Residents” shortly after the Treasury study. 

“This may be the fatal flaw in opportunity zones,” he wrote. “It explains why most of the investments have been in real estate — which tends to appreciate faster than other investments — and in Census tracts that were already improving before being designated as opportunity zones.”

So far, three other research studies have concluded that the investments made little to no impact on commercial development, no clear marks on housing prices, employment and business formation and a notable boost in multifamily and other residential property, according to a presentation last September at a Brookings Institution event by Naomi Feldman, an associate professor of economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who has studied opportunity zones. 

The credit “deviates a lot from previous policies” that were much more prescriptive, Feldman said.

“It didn’t want the government to have a lot of oversay over what was going on, where the investment was going, the type of investments and things like that,” she said. “It offered uncapped tax incentives for private individual investors to invest unrealized capital gains. So this was the big innovation of OZs. It was taking the stock of unrealized capital gains that wealthy individuals, or even less wealthy individuals, had sitting, and they could roll it over into these funds that could then be invested in these opportunity zones. And there were a lot of tax breaks that came with that.”

READ MORE: 3 oil and gas investments that bring big tax savings

A ‘place-based’ strategy

The shifts that Lalla is calling for in the policy “could either be narrowing criteria for what qualifies as an opportunity zone or creating force multipliers that further incentivize investments in more places,” he said. In other words, investors may consider ideas for, say, semiconductor plants, workforce training facilities or data centers across the Midwest and in rural areas throughout the country rather than trying to build more luxury residential properties in New York and Los Angeles.

While President Donald Trump has certainly favored that type of economic development over his career in real estate, entertainment and politics, those properties could tap into other tax incentives. And a refreshed approach to opportunity zones could speak to the “real innovation and talent potential in midsized cities throughout the Heartland,” enabling a policy that experts like Lalla describe as “place-based,” he said. With any policies that mention the words “diversity, equity and inclusion” in the slightest under threat during the second Trump administration, that location-based lens to inclusion remains an area of bipartisan agreement, according to Lalla.

“We can’t have cities across the country isolated from tech and innovation,” he said. “When you take a geographic lens to economic inclusion, to economic mobility, to economic prosperity, you are including communities like Tulsa, Oklahoma. You’re including communities throughout Appalachia, throughout the Midwest that have been isolated over the past 20 years.”

READ MORE: Can ESG come back from the dead?

Hope for the future?

In the book, Lalla compares the similar goals of opportunity zones to those of earlier policies under President Joe Biden’s administration like the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, the American Rescue Plan and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

“Together, these bills provided hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money for a more diverse group of cities and regions to invest in innovation infrastructure and ecosystems,” Lalla writes. “Although it will take years for these investments to bear fruit, they mark an encouraging change in federal economic development policy. I am cautiously optimistic that the incoming Trump administration will continue this trend, which has disproportionately helped the Heartland. For example, Trump’s opportunity zone program in his first term, which offered tax incentives to invest in distressed parts of the country, should be adapted and scaled to support innovation ecosystems in the Heartland. For the first time in generations, the government is taking a place-based approach to economic development, intentionally seeking to fund projects in communities historically disconnected from the nation’s innovation system and in essential industries. They’re doing so through a decidedly regional approach.”

Advisors and clients thinking together about aligning investment portfolios to their principles and local economies can get involved with those efforts — regardless of their political views, Lalla said.

“This really is a bipartisan issue. Opportunity zones won wide bipartisan approval,” he said. “Heartland cities can flourish and can do so in a complicated political environment.”

Continue Reading

Trending