Accounting
IAASB rolls out ISSA 5000 sustainability assurance standard
The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board is preparing for the adoption of its International Standard on Sustainability Assurance 5000 early next year as companies look to get outside approval from auditing firms on their environmental efforts.
The IAASB
Policymakers, regulators and other standard-setting bodies in multiple jurisdictions have already indicated plans to adopt this new standard. Earlier this year the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recognized the IAASB’s work and standards in this area for the purpose of allowing assurance on climate disclosures, even though the SEC’s own
“ISSA 5000, which is our sustainability assurance standard, is meant to serve as a global baseline for sustainability assurance practices,” said IAASB chair Tom Seidenstein.
Once the PIOB certifies the IAASB standard, the IAASB plans to offer a range of guidance and educational materials to help people and other standard-setters with the application and implementation of ISSA 5000. So far, the IAASB has heard positive responses from standard-setters in various jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, Brazil, Turkey and the European Union, about their intention of adopting some or all of the standard for their requirements. “That’s just the earliest stages,” said Seidenstein. “They were all waiting for us to finish the standard, and we’ll have to see how those considerations progress.”
ISSA 5000 builds on two of the IAASB’s existing standards on assurance:
“With the growing desire to have sustainability reporting throughout the world and the emergence of some of the leading reporting frameworks, we were urged to take what we had and make it specific to sustainability reporting,” said Seidenstein. “We took a pretty broad-based, principles-based framework that applied to all assurance and really focused it in, took our best practices on the assurance side, grabbed some of the key concepts that we’ve brought into the audit side, and made a sustainability-specific standard. Now what’s really important about this is it will work with all sustainability information prepared with any suitable reporting framework.”
That means it would work with not only the
The IAASB developed the standards so they could work with various frameworks. “Our standard covers any sustainability information, so that would be covered as long as the reporting framework fulfills certain criteria, then our standard will work against that,” said Seidenstein. “You’re assuring against a framework. Reporting standard-setters will set the framework.”
ISSA 5000 addresses both limited and reasonable assurance. “Most assurance engagements these days are on a limited assurance basis,” said Seidenstein, noting that both the SEC and CSRD rules require only limited assurance. But he believes investors will eventually be demanding the more stringent “reasonable assurance.”
“We wanted to have a clear pathway in our standards with a differentiation between limited and reachable assurance requirements, and ISSA 5000 provides both,” said Seidenstein.
Reasonable assurance is similar to the level of assurance offered in financial audits. “The assurance practitioner does a number of inquiries, does the risk assessment, responds to it and reduces the risk of material misstatement down to an acceptable level,” Seidenstein explained. “That’s really important, and will give a high-level degree of confidence that the sustainability reports are stated correctly. In the world of limited assurance, there’s less work done. It’s stated in a negative way, that there’s nothing that’s come to the attention of the practitioner that would lead them to believe that the statements are materially misstated. That’s really about a different type of risk assessment, different lines of inquiry, in responding to areas of risk, whereas a reasonable assurance engagement is much more robust. Most people are focused on limited right now to develop the capacity, knowledge and understanding as we then transition to reasonable assurance over time.”
However, the standards should help investors assess the reliability of a company’s sustainability reporting.
“What these standards will do, just like audit standards and just like assurance today, but in a much more specific way, will give the users of information more confidence that an external third party that’s independent and expert has reviewed the sustainability reports and can either provide a limited assurance or reasonable assurance opinion against the sustainability report, and that should give confidence,” said Seidenstein. “It’s the same thing as you would expect on the financial reporting side. It’s precisely why audits are important that you have an independent expert third party look at it to make sure that there’s no material misstatements.”
An
Auditors would follow many of the same basic approaches and methodologies in the world of financial auditing, from the planning to the conclusion to the reporting stages. “We focus very much on the planning, the risk assessment phase, the risk response phase of audits, so it’s very similar in many concepts, but translated to a sustainability context,” said Seidenstein. “What is slightly different in this world is first of all, you have much more qualitative and prospective information than you would in the financial reporting context, so you’re very focused on the process, the controls, the approach to making sure that the disclosures are materially correct.”
The IAASB wrote the standard so it can be used by both accountants and non-accountants since some other types of consulting firms that aren’t accounting firms have also been providing assurance on sustainability reporting, particularly when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. IFAC’s
The report found the IAASB’s assurance standard, International Standard on Assurance Engagements 3000 (Revised), continues to be used most frequently. In the most recent year for which data is available (2022), 92% of firms applied ISAE 3000 (Revised) in their sustainability assurance engagements, 98% of companies reported some level of detail on sustainability, and 69% obtained assurance on at least some of their sustainability disclosures. But the mix of reporting standards used by companies remains fragmented
For ISSA 5000, non-accountant practitioners would still need to adhere to the IAASB’s quality management standards as well as the ethics standards developed by its sister standard-setting board, the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants. IESBA has also been developing ethics standards for sustainability reporting. The International Organization of Securities Commissions has
“We’re clearly proud of this work, that we were able to turn this around in under two years’ time with robust due process, and we met the timeline particularly set forward by IOSCO in their recommendation to both us and IESBA in terms of supporting sustainability reporting requirements,” said Seidenstein.
Even though the SEC’s climate rule is on hold, he believes the standards will still be useful for U.S. accountants.
“In the United States, there are many different companies that will be seeking assurance, or already do seek assurance, on their sustainability reporting,” said Seidenstein. “So many companies have ESG reports or sustainability reports on a voluntary basis. There are a number of companies that are likely to adopt ISSB standards beyond that on a voluntary basis, or report on some other set of standards currently and are seeking assurance. There are many companies that will be required to conform with the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, and they will be required to have assurance under the CSRD and potentially be required to use our set of standards. The European Commission asked the CEAOB, which is the Committee of European Audit Oversight Boards, to advise the Commission on how to implement assurance requirements. It said specifically to look at our work on 5000 in that regard. American companies may have that requirement and could be in the value chain of companies that require sustainability reporting, whether it’s in Europe or elsewhere, and would also require assurance. There are a number of ways that our work could be relevant to American companies, irrespective of the climate rule.”
A recent
ISSA 5000 promises to be widely useful for auditing firms in providing assurance on these important metrics. “We believe that this will establish a global baseline on the assurance side to complement what’s happening on the reporting side, and you really can’t have one without the other,” said Seidenstein.
The Financial Accounting Standards Board met this week to discuss its projects on accounting for transfers of cryptocurrency assets and enhancing the disclosures around certain digital assets, such as stablecoins.
Processing Content
During Wednesday’s meeting, FASB’s board made certain tentative decisions, according to a
At a future meeting, the board plans to consider clarifying the derecognition guidance for crypto transfer arrangements to assess whether the control of a crypto asset has been transferred.
FASB also began deliberations on the
The board decided to provide illustrative examples in Topic 230, Statement of Cash Flows, to clarify whether certain digital assets such as stablecoins can meet the definition of cash equivalents. It also decided to include the following concepts in the illustrative examples:
- Interpretive explanations that link to the current cash equivalents definition;
- The amount and composition of reserve assets; and,
- The nature of qualifying on-demand, contractual cash redemption rights directly with the issuer.
FASB plans to clarify that an entity should consider compliance with relevant laws and regulations when it’s creating a policy concerning which assets that satisfy the Master Glossary definition of the term “cash equivalents“ will be treated as cash equivalents.
“I agree with the staff suggestion to look at examples,” said FASB vice chair Hillary Salo. “From my perspective, I think that is going to help level the playing field. People have been making reasonable judgments. I agree with that. And I think that this is really going to help show those goalposts or guardrails of what types of stablecoins would be in the scope of cash equivalents, and which ones would not be in the scope of cash equivalents. I certainly appreciate that approach, and I think it has the least potential impact of unintended consequences, because I do agree with my fellow board members that we shouldn’t be changing the definition of cash equivalents, and it’s a high bar to get into the cash equivalent definition.”
“I’m definitely supportive of not changing the definition of cash equivalents,” said FASB chair Richard Jones. “I believe that’s settled GAAP in a way, and we’re not really seeing a call to change it for broader issues. I am supportive of the example-based approach. The challenge with examples, though, is everybody’s going to want their exact pattern, but that’s not what we’re doing.”
The examples will explain the rationale for how digital assets such as stablecoins do or do not qualify as cash equivalents and give a roadmap for other types of digital assets with varying fact patterns to be able to apply.
“We really don’t want to be as a board facing a situation where something was a cash equivalent and then no longer is at a later date,” said Jones. “That’s not good for anyone, so keeping it as a high bar with certain rigid criteria, I think, is fine.”
Stablecoins are supposed to be pegged to fiat currencies such as U.S. dollars and thus provide more stability to investors. “In my view, while a stablecoin may meet the accounting definition established for cash equivalents, not every one of those stablecoins in the cash equivalent classification represents the same level of risk,” said FASB member Joyce Joseph.
She noted that the capital markets recognize the distinctions and have established a Stablecoin Stability Assessment Framework to evaluate a stablecoin’s ability to maintain its peg to a fiat currency. Such assessments look at the legal and regulatory framework associated with the stablecoin, and provide investors with information that could enable them to do forward-looking assessments about the stability of the stablecoin.
“However, for an investor to consider and utilize such information for a company analysis the financial statement disclosures would need to include information about the stablecoin itself,” Joseph added. “In outreach, the staff learned that investors supported classifying certain stablecoins as cash equivalents when transparent information is available about the entities at which the reserve assets are held. Therefore, in my view, taking all of this into consideration a relevant and informative company disclosure would include providing investors with the name of the stablecoin and the amount of the stablecoin that is classified as a cash equivalent, so investors can independently assess the liquidity risks more meaningfully and more comprehensively by utilizing broader information that is available in the capital markets and its emerging information.”
Such information could include the issuer, reserves, governance and management, she noted, so investors would get a more holistic look at the risks that holding the stablecoin would entail for a given company.
The board decided to require all entities to disclose the significant classes and related amounts of cash equivalents on an annual basis for each period that a statement of financial position is presented.
Entities should apply the amendments related to the classification of certain digital assets as cash equivalents on a modified prospective basis as of the beginning of the annual reporting period in the year of adoption.
FASB decided that entities should apply the amendments related to the disclosure of the significant classes and amounts of cash equivalents on a prospective basis as of the date of the most recent statement of financial position presented in the period of adoption.
The board will allow early adoption in both interim and annual reporting periods in which financial statements have not been issued or made available for issuance.
FASB also decided to permit entities to adopt the amendments to be illustrated in the examples related to the classification of certain digital assets as cash equivalents without the need to perform a preferability assessment as described in Topic 250, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections.
The board directed the staff to draft a proposed accounting standards update to be voted on by written ballot. The proposed update will have a 90-day comment period.
Senators introduced several pieces of tax-related legislation this week, including measures aimed at improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service, cracking down on tax evasion and curbing the carried interest tax break, in addition to efforts in the House to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act.
Processing Content
Senators Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, and Mark Warner, D-Virginia, teamed up on introducing a bipartisan bill, the
The bill would establish a dashboard to inform taxpayers of backlogs and wait times; expand electronic access to information and refunds; expand callback technology and online accounts; and inform individuals facing economic hardship about collection alternatives.
“Taxpayers deserve a simple, stress-free experience when dealing with the IRS,” Cassidy said in a statement Wednesday. “This bill makes the process quicker and easier for taxpayers to get the information they need.”
He also mentioned the bill during a
“I’m happy to meet with the team … and do all I can to make it as good as you want it to be,” said Bisignano.
“My bill would equip the IRS with the legislative mandate to create an online dashboard so that taxpayers can monitor average call wait time and budget time accordingly,” said Cassidy. He noted that the bill would allow a callback for taxpayers that might need to wait longer than five minutes to speak to a representative, and establish a program to identify and support taxpayers struggling to make ends meet by providing information about alternative payment methods, such as installments, partial payments and offers in compromise.
“I know people are kind of desperate and don’t know where to turn for cash, so I think this could really ease anxiety,” he added. “This legislation is bipartisan and is likely to pass this Congress.”
Cassidy and Warner
“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to get basic answers from the IRS — and in the last year, those challenges have only gotten worse,” Warner said in a statement. “I am glad to reintroduce this bipartisan legislation on Tax Day to ease some of this frustration by increasing clear communication and making IRS resources more readily available.”
Stop CHEATERS Act
Also on Tax Day, a group of Senate Democrats and an independent who usually caucuses with Democrats teamed up to introduce the Stop Corporations and High Earners from Avoiding Taxes and Enforce the Rules Strictly (Stop CHEATERS) Act.
Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, joined with Senators Angus King, I-Maine, Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island. The bill would provide additional funding for the IRS to strengthen and expand tax collection services and systems and crack down on tax cheating by the wealthy.
“Wealthy tax cheats and scofflaw corporations are stealing billions and billions from the American people by refusing to pay what they legally owe, and far too many of them are getting a free pass because Republicans gutted the enforcement capacity of the IRS,” Wyden said in a statement. “A rich tax cheat who shelters mountains of cash among a web of shell companies and passthroughs is likelier to be struck by lightning than face an IRS audit, and Republicans want to keep it that way. This bill is about making sure the IRS has the resources it needs to go after wealthy tax cheats while improving customer service for the vast majority of American taxpayers who follow the law every year.”
Earlier this week. Wyden also
The Stop CHEATERS Act would provide the IRS with additional funding for tax enforcement focused upon high-income tax evasion, technology operations support, systems modernization, and taxpayer services like free tax-payer assistance.
“As Congress seeks ways to fund much-needed policy priorities and address our growing national debt, there is one common sense solution that should have unanimous bipartisan support: let’s enforce the tax laws already on the books,” said King in a statement. “Our legislation will make sure the IRS has the resources it needs to confront the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid – while ensuring that our tax enforcement professionals are focused on the high-income earners who account for the most tax evasion. This is a serious problem with an easy solution; let’s pass this legislation and make sure every American pays what they owe in taxes.”
Carried interest
Wyden, King and Whitehouse also teamed up on another bill Thursday to close the carried interest tax break for hedge fund managers that
Carried interest is a form of compensation received by a fund manager in exchange for investment management services, according to a
Under the bill, the
“Our tax code is rigged to favor ultra-wealthy investors who know how to game the system to dodge paying a fair share, and there is no better example of how it works in practice than the carried interest loophole,” Wyden said in a statement. “For several decades now we’ve had a tax system that rewards the accumulation of wealth by the rich while punishing middle-class wage earners, and the effect of that system has been the strangulation of prosperity and opportunity for everybody but the ultra-wealthy. There are a lot of problems to fix to restore fairness and common sense to our tax code, and closing the carried interest loophole is a great place to start.”
Repealing Corporate Transparency Act
The House Financial Services Committee is also planning to markup a bill next Tuesday that would fully repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, which has already been significantly
If enacted, the repeal would eliminate beneficial ownership reporting requirements, removing a transparency measure designed to help law enforcement and national security officials identify who is behind U.S. companies.
“This repeal would turn the United States back into one of the easiest places in the world to set up anonymous shell companies, something Congress worked for years to fix,” said Erica Hanichak, deputy director of the FACT Coalition, in a statement. “These entities are routinely used to facilitate corruption, financial crime, and abuse. Rolling back the CTA doesn’t just weaken transparency, it signals to bad actors around the world that the U.S. is once again open for illicit business.”
The Internal Revenue Service rarely penalizes taxpayers who have high balances in foreign bank accounts and fail to file the proper forms, according to a new report.
Processing Content
The
Taxpayers with specified foreign financial assets that meet a certain dollar threshold are also required to report the information to the IRS by filing Form 8938. Failure to file the form can result in penalties of up to $60,000. However, TIGTA’s previous reports have demonstrated that the IRS rarely enforces these penalties.
The IRS created an Offshore Private Banking Campaign initiative to address tax noncompliance related to taxpayers’ failure to file Form 8938 and information reporting associated with offshore banking accounts, but it’s had limited success.
Even though the initiative identified hundreds of individual taxpayers with significant foreign bank account deposits who failed to file Forms 8938, the campaign only resulted in relatively few taxpayer examinations and a small number of nonfiling penalties. The campaign identified 405 taxpayers with significant foreign account balances who appeared to be noncompliant with their FATCA reporting requirements.
The IRS used two ways to address the 405 noncompliant taxpayers: referral for examinations and the issuance of letters to them.
- 164 taxpayers (who had an average unreported foreign account balance of $1.3 billion) were referred for possible examination, but only 12 of the 164 were examined, with five having $39.7 million in additional tax and $80,000 in penalties assessed.
- 241 noncompliant taxpayers (who had an average unreported account balance of $377 million) received a combination of 225 educational letters (requiring no response from the taxpayers) and 16 soft letters (requiring taxpayers to respond). None of the 241 taxpayers were assessed the initial $10,000 FATCA nonfiling penalty.
“While taxpayers can hold offshore banking accounts for a number of legitimate reasons, some taxpayers have also used them to hide income and evade taxes,” said the report.
Significant assets and income are factors considered by the IRS when assessing whether taxpayers intentionally evaded their tax responsibilities, the report noted. Given the large size of the average unreported foreign account balances, these taxpayers probably have higher levels of sophistication and an awareness of their obligation to comply with the law.
TIGTA believes the IRS needs to establish specific performance measures to determine the effectiveness of the FATCA program. “If the IRS does not plan to enforce the FATCA provisions even where obvious noncompliance is identified, it should at least quantify the enforcement impact of its efforts,” said the report. “This will ensure that IRS decision makers have the information they need to determine if the FATCA program is worth the investment and improves taxpayer compliance.
TIGTA made three recommendations in the report, including revising Campaign 896 processes to include assessing FATCA failure to file penalties; assessing the viability of using Form 1099 data to identify Form 8938 nonfilers; and implementing additional performance measures to give decision makers comprehensive information about the effectiveness of the FATCA program. The IRS disagreed with two of TIGTA’s recommendations and partially agreed with the remaining recommendation. IRS officials didn’t agree to assess penalties in Campaign 896 or with implementing performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the FATCA program.
“From our perspective, TIGTA’s conclusions regarding IRS Campaign 896 are based, in part, on a misguided premise and overgeneralizations, including the treatment of ‘potential noncompliance’ as tantamount to ‘egregious noncompliance’ that warrants a monetary penalty without contemplating the variety of justifications that may exempt a taxpayer from having to file Form 8938,” wrote Mabeline Baldwin, acting commissioner of the IRS’s Large Business and International Division, in response to the report.
What that means for consumer loans
Checks and Balance newsletter: Of God and MAGA
Why software stocks, 2026’s market dogs, have joined the rally
Armanino adds Strategic Accounting Outsourced Solutions
New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations
