With busy season upon us, it is vital for practitioners to take note that this is the time that accountants are most likely to make errors that can lead to lawsuits.
Given the time constraints, deadlines, and pressure of dealing with unfamiliar situations and new laws and regulations, it’s no wonder that tax pros make mistakes. Liability professionals confirm this with the observation that tax services are the most frequent cause of liability lawsuits against accountants, although not the most severe.
One factor involved in liability claims against accountants is “scope creep,” according to Stan Sterna, vice president and risk control leader at Aon, the program manager for the AICPA professional liability program.
Natasa Adzic/stock.adobe.com
For example, a tax engagement might result in failure to detect a defalcation: “The claimant alleges that the accountant agreed to look at internal controls, or that was the expectation,” he explained. “Whenever a client expects the accountant to provide advice that is beyond the scope of a tax preparation engagement, that results in scope creep.”
Scope creep can result from a casual conversation, or simply a misunderstanding at the time of the engagement. And the best way to guard against it is through the use of engagement letters — which has, unfortunately, always been historically low, according to Sterna.
“It’s the first line of defense of a professional liability claim,” he said. “But tax practitioners find various reasons not to use them — too many clients, clients will take it as a CYA measure, it’s a low-risk engagement, or ‘We’re friends and they would never sue me.'”
The engagement letter allows the accountant to define what is and what is not within the scope of the tax services the accountant is to provide, and aligns expectations.
“It should be signed by the client and reissued every year so you can regularly review services and client needs,” Sterna said. “If additional services are required, draft a separate engagement letter or amend the original to define the scope of and fees for these ancillary services.”
“Advise your client that they need to sign the letter before you can commence your tax services,” he advised. “That affords both you and your client the opportunity to ask questions about the nature of the services and clarify any confusion before starting any work.”
And if the accountant feels reticent about requesting an engagement letter for their tax services, “Simply tell them that it’s required by your insurance company,” advise liability professionals.
Hitting the deadlines
If your client misses a due date, any role you played as tax preparer will be front and center in a claim, Sterna noted. “The number of professional liability claims involving missed due dates has been rising,” he noted. “While civil enforcement funding has been scaled back, the IRS has increased staffing and enhanced its technology in recent years, ramping up enforcement and portending fewer penalty abatements.”
He advises practitioners to deploy a reliable form of docket system that tracks and alerts to due dates, respond-by dates, and project status.
“While many practitioners already deploy some version of a docket system ranging from the humble spreadsheet to the full-bodied practice management software that lists forms and due dates, things still slip through the cracks, particularly during busy season,” he said. “This is compounded by the myriad of statutory dates beyond annual, periodic tax compliance such as estate tax returns, income tax returns for estates, amended returns, and legislatively created deadlines. Your docket system’s reliability is only as good as your interaction with it, so be diligent in inputting accurate and timely information.”
It’s also important to be careful who you share client data with, Sterna warned.
“Remember that Section 7216 requires client consent before disclosing to a third party any information furnished in connection with the preparation of a tax return,” he explained. “Section 7216’s consent requirements are more robust, and very specific language is required if tax information, particularly for individual tax clients, is disclosed to parties offshore. Violating Section 7216 can result in criminal penalties.”
Sterna noted that the AICPA provides guidance on Section 7216, including a sample consent form available for download. “Remember, tax practitioners who are AICPA members or are CPAs in states where the AICPA Code applies to them must also comply with the AICPA Statements on Standards for Tax Services Section 1.3, Data Protection, which states that a CPA should make reasonable efforts to safeguard taxpayer data, including data transmitted or stored electronically.”
He emphasized that data and personal information from your client is highly sensitive and losing that information could expose you not only to monetary damages but regulatory action and reputational harm.
Cyber criminals, he noted, are opportunistic and exploit times when your guard is down, such as during busy season. To mitigate risk, he strongly advised using an updated antivirus software, and a multifactor authentication system to access your network. He also recommended encrypted email communications, and limiting access to client information to only those individuals with a clear need to access the data.
Lastly, as tax professionals work their way through busy season, they should be aware of any 2024 tax changes impacting 2025 filings, noted Sterna.
“Future extension of the TCJA, while not necessarily a busy season risk issue, is something that might need to be considered later this year,” he said.
In a decisive move toward standardized environmental financial reporting, accounting standards boards issued updated implementation guidance during the week ending July 25, 2026, regarding the formal recognition and valuation of corporate carbon offsets and environmental credits. The revised frameworks establish precise rules for how enterprises must measure, record, and disclose carbon credits on balance sheets, eliminating years of inconsistent reporting practices across public capital markets.
Under the finalized accounting standard, purchased carbon offsets can no longer be categorized under vague administrative expenses or unstandardized intangible asset accounts. Instead, organizations must classify environmental credits based on underlying operational intent—distinguishing between credits held for immediate compliance compliance obligations, long-term offset obligations, or active market trading. Furthermore, companies are required to evaluate carbon holdings for fair value impairment at the end of each reporting period, ensuring that depreciated or low-quality environmental credits do not distort corporate asset values.
The standardized rules carry significant implications for corporate audit committees and chief accounting officers. External audit firms are implementing rigorous verification protocols to validate the physical legitimacy, legal ownership, and scientific permanence of carbon credits claimed on balance sheets. Inaccurate or overstated carbon accounting claims now carry substantial financial litigation risk, alongside potential regulatory enforcement for misleading ESG disclosures.
To remain fully compliant, corporate accounting departments must establish centralized carbon tracking systems integrated into primary standard ERP ledgers. Accounting teams that proactively adopt standardized environmental reporting protocols will build investor credibility, streamline annual audit processes, and insulate their organizations against evolving regulatory scrutiny.
Corporate tax departments reached a critical juncture in automated operational management. With nations worldwide rapidly enacting digital service taxes, localized value-added tax (VAT) mandates, and real-time electronic invoicing requirements, manual tax calculations have become obsolete. Modern corporate tax divisions are aggressively deploying AI-driven tax engine software to automate complex cross-border indirect tax calculations in real time.
The imperative for automated tax compliance stems from the sheer complexity of current trade policies and multi-jurisdictional commerce. E-commerce platforms, software vendors, and global manufacturers face constantly changing regional tax rates, statutory exemption rules, and cross-border tariff structures. Automated tax engines embed directly into enterprise enterprise resource planning (ERP) architectures, automatically applying correct tax codes at the point of sale, calculating real-time withholding amounts, and generating compliant e-invoices.
Automated audit trail generation represents another key advantage of modern tax tech integration. Advanced compliance platforms log every transactional tax determination on immutable digital ledgers, providing tax authorities with transparent, self-verifying audit trails. This capability drastically reduces the operational duration and administrative cost of corporate tax audits, protecting enterprises against severe penalties resulting from calculation errors or missed reporting deadlines.
For chief financial officers and tax directors, investing in automated tax compliance is a vital operational risk mitigation strategy. Automating routine tax calculations frees high-level accounting professionals to focus on strategic tax planning, transfer pricing optimization, and risk management in an increasingly complex global economic environment.
As corporate accounting departments cross the threshold into late July 2026, the adoption of continuous, automated auditing systems has reached a definitive turning point. Driven by advances in artificial intelligence and deep integration with modern Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platforms, leading finance organizations are moving away from traditional, periodic post-hoc audits in favor of real-time, 100% transactional verification. This technological transition is redefining internal control environments, reducing compliance costs, and eliminating the structural delays inherent in legacy quarterly closing processes.
Unlike traditional auditing frameworks that rely on statistical sampling—a process that inevitably leaves operational blind spots—continuous auditing software monitors operational data feeds continuously. Every purchase order, electronic invoice, payroll disbursement, and cross-border wire transfer is automatically cross-referenced against established corporate governance parameters, regulatory tax schedules, and anti-fraud algorithms in real time. Anomalies or unauthorized ledger entries are flagged instantly, allowing internal audit teams to investigate and remediate compliance gaps immediately rather than months after the close of a financial period.
The implications for executive financial management are far-reaching. By embedding continuous verification directly into daily transaction workflows, chief financial officers gain uninterrupted visibility into the organization’s true financial standing. Real-time balance sheet auditing eliminates the severe operational bottlenecks associated with month-end and quarter-end financial reconciliations, freeing accounting professionals to focus on strategic financial modeling, tax planning, and capital allocation rather than manual data entry and spreadsheet consolidation.
However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting leadership to invest heavily in data governance and technical upskilling. Internal audit teams must evolve from manual ledger reviewers into system architects capable of auditing complex algorithms and validating automated data pipelines. Accounting firms and corporate controllers that master continuous auditing will establish a resilient compliance framework capable of meeting stringent international regulatory standards with total transparency.