Connect with us

Accounting

Accountants’ top concerns in the 2024 election year

Published

on

Accountants are fairly evenly divided on the upcoming U.S. presidential election, but they share common ground on the issues that pose the most significant threats to their firms and the profession.

A new survey conducted by Arizent, the parent company of Accounting Today, reveals that accountants consider the economy (51%), the national debt (46%) and tax reform (42%) the most urgent concerns in relation to their firms’ business for the next presidential administration and Congress to address. The 2024 survey collected responses from over 1,200 U.S. business leaders and professionals across accounting firms, banks, payments firms, mortgage lenders, insurance agents, wealth management firms and others.

High interest rates, rising inflation and an economy teetering on the edge of a recession are a top concern for firms of all sizes. Respondents mentioned clients under financial strain and challenges managing cash flow as issues related to the current economy.

“The single most important issue is instability and high inflation that is putting down pressure on the prices that I can charge my clients for services,” an executive at a Western midsized firm responded. “With lower prices, I am limited in the ability to improve the level of services and develop my business.” 

A manager at a small firm in the South responded, “The current economy has caused us to lose some clients because they can no longer afford us. They are not bringing in the same income they were the past few years.”

A staff member at another small firm in the South said, “Our costs have gone up significantly in the past three years, and we have had to pass those costs on to our clients who are getting hit with rising costs from all sides. No one is thriving in this current climate and economy.”

The national debt is another top concern hand-in-hand with worries over the economy. Accountants may be worried about increased government spending, including the additional $80 billion in IRS funding, billions of dollars in student loan forgiveness under the Biden administration, and aid to foreign conflicts like the wars in Ukraine and Israel.

(Dive into the numbers behind accountants’ thoughts about the election.)

Unsurprisingly, tax reform is also top of mind for accountants who already struggle to keep up with the grueling hours of tax season amid the ongoing labor shortage. Accountants say continual changes in the Tax Code make it difficult for them to do their jobs.

“As a CPA who prepares lots of tax returns, the constant changing of the Tax Code and the sunsetting of tax laws that have to be renewed every year and sometimes are not done early enough,” an executive at a small firm in the Northeast responded. “If they are going to make these changes year after year, make them permanent so tax planning can be done more effectively and efficiently.”

Another executive at a small firm in the Midwest said, “Far too many temporary tax laws make it difficult for long-term planning. Retroactive tax changes make it even more difficult for the profession.”

Casting their votes

As for the general election, accountants’ votes will be fairly evenly split between the two major parties. Thirty-five percent say they intend to vote Democrat and 33% intend to vote Republican. Meanwhile, 15% say they are undecided, and the remaining 17% responded as “Other.”

More firms (42%) say a Republican president would be the best outcome for their firm and the profession, compared to 34% who say a Democratic candidate would be best and 18% who say either party would make no difference. Similarly, more firms say a Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives would be better than if they were controlled by Democrats.

The common thread between respondents is the level of dissatisfaction with the current political climate. Seventy-one percent report being “very dissatisfied,” 18% “somewhat dissatisfied,” and only 10% “somewhat or very satisfied.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

IAASB tweaks standards on working with outside experts

Published

on

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.  

Continue Reading

Accounting

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

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Accounting

At Schellman, AI reshapes a firm’s staffing needs

Published

on

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.”

Continue Reading

Trending