Connect with us

Accounting

AICPA proposes update to auditors’ responsibilities related to fraud

Published

on

The American Institute of CPAs’ Auditing Standards Board is looking for feedback on a proposed standard updating auditors’ responsibilities related to fraud.

The proposed Statement on Auditing Standards, The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements, includes several changes, such as the creation of required procedures for when an auditor has identified or suspected fraud. The proposed SAS also reminds auditors to maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  

“This exposure draft doesn’t alter the overall objectives of the auditor when fraud or suspected fraud is identified,” said AICPA chief auditor Jennifer Burns in a statement Thursday. “What it does is strengthen and clarify the auditor’s specific role in these circumstances. Management, those charged with governance and auditors all have important responsibilities, and when everyone diligently executes those responsibilities, an organization is best positioned to identify fraud.”

The proposed changes come in the wake of a stalled project from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board that was opposed by many auditing firms and organizations.

The proposed changes in the exposure draft include:

  • New requirements to clarify the auditor’s response when fraud or suspected fraud is identified in an audit of financial statements, which are among the most significant changes in the proposed SAS;
  • Extra guidance to explain the relationship of fraud with corruption, bribery and money laundering, as well as fraud committed against an entity by third parties;
  • A new requirement that stresses the importance of remaining alert throughout the audit for information that is indicative of fraud or suspected fraud;
  • A new requirement for the engagement partner, when addressing engagement resources, to determine that members of the engagement team collectively have the appropriate competence and capabilities, including sufficient time and appropriate skills or knowledge, to perform the audit;
  • A broadening of the requirement for an auditor to perform a retrospective review of management judgments and assumptions related to accounting estimates reflected in the financial statements of the prior year, and not just those of significant accounting estimates;
  • A new requirement for the auditor to treat the risk of management override of controls as a risk of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial statement level and to determine whether such risk affects the assessment of risks at the assertion level;
  • An enhanced requirement for an auditor to take into account related fraud risk factors when determining which types of revenue, revenue transactions or relevant assertions give rise to risks of material misstatement due to fraud;
  • Auditors are concerned about a material misstatement of financial statements due to fraud, and the proposed standard clarifies that even when an identified misstatement due to fraud is not “quantitatively material,” it may nevertheless be “qualitatively material” depending on who instigated or perpetrated the fraud (such as management) and why the fraud was perpetrated;
  • Requirements pertaining to communications with management and the governing body throughout the audit engagement.

Comments about the exposure draft are due by Oct. 3, 2025. If issued as final, the proposed SAS would supersede SAS No. 122, Statements on Auditing Standards: Clarification and Recodification, as amended, section 240, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit (AU-C Section 240), and  amend several other standards.

The exposure draft is the result of over three years of outreach and research by an ASB task force, which also considered alignment of the proposed standard, where appropriate, with a similar project by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. The ASB is also continuing to monitor a similar project at the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, known as the noncompliance with laws and regulations or NOCLAR standard, which the PCAOB has halted for this year after a backlash from auditing firms and business groups.

If issued as final, the proposed SAS would be effective for audits of financial statements for periods ending on or after Dec. 15, 2028, with early implementation permitted.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Embedded AI and Automated Anomaly Detection Reshape Modern Corporate Accounting Frameworks

Published

on

Embedded AI and Automated Anomaly Detection Reshape Modern Corporate Accounting Frameworks

The accounting and audit landscape in 2026

The accounting and audit landscape in 2026 is defined by the full integration of artificial intelligence directly into core enterprise software platforms. Rather than operating as standalone third-party tools, generative AI, automated reconciliation, and continuous anomaly detection are now natively embedded within major ERP engines including SAP, Oracle, Microsoft Dynamics, QuickBooks, and Sage. This technology integration is transforming daily financial operations, internal reporting controls, and external audit workflows.

Recent industry benchmark surveys reveal a widening performance gap

Recent industry benchmark surveys reveal a widening performance gap between finance teams utilizing integrated AI automation and those relying on legacy manual processes. Organizations actively leveraging embedded AI report up to 37% higher revenue per employee, driven by automated invoice matching, instant ledger entries, and predictive cash flow modeling. Routine, high-volume transactional tasks that once required manual intervention are now executed in real time with continuous digital audit trails.

AI introduces new governance and control responsibilities

However, the widespread deployment of embedded AI introduces new governance and control responsibilities for accounting professionals. Auditing standards now mandate strict verification protocols for algorithmically generated journal entries and financial commentary. External auditors are evaluating enterprise AI governance frameworks, reviewing automated rule sets, testing data ingestion pipelines, and ensuring that financial controllers maintain human-in-the-loop oversight over automated system outputs.

Furthermore, cloud governance and data security have become core operational skills for modern CPAs and controllers. As financial ledgers and client data stream through interconnected cloud ecosystem APIs, accounting teams must implement multi-factor access controls, continuous data encryption, and strict data privacy compliance to protect sensitive financial records from cyber vulnerabilities.

The embedding of AI into enterprise accounting software redefines internal financial controls and career requirements for accounting professionals. Business owners and finance leaders must update governance protocols, invest in staff digital literacy, and ensure accounting systems maintain rigorous audit compliance to capture productivity gains safely.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Published

on

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Corporate accounting departments face an expanded regulatory mandate as mandatory sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting frameworks take full effect internationally. Governed by the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) IFRS S1 and S2 standards, enterprise financial controllers are now legally required to track, verify, and report non-financial data with the same internal controls and auditability as traditional financial statements.

The expansion shifts ESG compliance

This regulatory expansion shifts ESG compliance from marketing departments to corporate accounting offices. Financial managers are now responsible for gathering, consolidating, and verifying carbon emissions metrics, supply chain labor conditions, water usage, and climate risk exposures across multi-tiered corporate structures. These non-financial metrics must be integrated into standardized general ledgers to withstand rigorous third-party audit assurance processes.

To comply with these rigorous reporting mandates, accounting software providers have added dedicated ESG modules designed to aggregate data from IoT sensors, utility platforms, and vendor management systems. Controllers are implementing internal control frameworks—modeled after traditional COSO frameworks—to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of sustainability disclosures, protecting organizations against greenwashing penalties and litigation risks.

The transition requires significant cross-functional collaboration between accounting teams, legal counsel, and operational directors. Accounting professionals are expanding their technical expertise beyond financial ledgers to master carbon accounting methodologies, lifecycle assessment standards, and non-financial data governance protocols, fundamentally expanding the role of the modern corporate accountant.

Why This Information Matters
Mandatory ESG disclosures require companies to treat environmental and social metrics as audited financial records. Executives, accountants, and board members must institute formal tracking and assurance processes to satisfy legal mandates, maintain investor confidence, and mitigate regulatory non-compliance risks.

Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

on

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.

What the SEC Proposed

According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.

The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.

Why Investors Are Pushing Back

Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.

Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.

Lessons From the U.K. Experience

The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.

Practical Implications for Finance Teams

Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.

Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.

What to Watch Next

The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.

Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.

 

Continue Reading

Trending