Connect with us

Accounting

Art of Accounting: How to end the self-created pipeline problem

Published

on

Complimentary Access Pill

Enjoy complimentary access to top ideas and insights — selected by our editors.

I quit two jobs I liked because of poor raises. I resolved that when I had my own practice, I would not let this happen to my staff. And it never did because I paid the right salaries (and usually on the higher level). Of course there were exceptions. There are always exceptions. But as a rule, I never lost staff because of inadequate salary or a poor raise.

I do not think I was so imaginative, innovative or even too bright. I was using my early experiences as the role model to keep staff that wanted to stay and who I also wanted to stay. As things worked out, I pretty much made the right decisions when I quit since each future firm gave me added experience and opportunities, and the appropriate salaries.

I feel disgusted when I read interviews and articles about the pipeline “problem” when one of the causes cited is the low salaries being paid to entry-level and experienced staff who could earn much more in positions outside the profession.

I, along with my partners, came up with rationales for our higher salaries. I think these are just plain common sense. It was certainly good business for us, and here are some of the things we did and the reasons. This shares my pre-Withum experiences, but from what I hear from colleagues, everything we did is still valid. However, very few firms duplicate it, just as very few duplicated it 45 years ago when I started writing and speaking about this. This is not new stuff. 

  • For starters, we were a small practice and primarily hired people out of school. Generally, we weren’t competing with the larger firms that had higher starting salaries, so we paid a little lower than “market” to get staff on board. We had a great training program and our staff advanced quite rapidly. What we did was recognize the value they acquired and gave them a raise after six months and every six months thereafter for about two to two and a half years until their steep learning curve leveled off somewhat, and then moved them to an annual raise. We, in effect, paid them what they were worth at the end of every six-month period. 
  • Many colleagues pointed out to us that we were paying staff for what we taught them at our expense, and they thought we were foolish. The fallacy in this is that our staff owned what we taught them and if they left, we lost what they knew, the relationships they established with clients and the level they were performing at for us at that time. We did what we needed to do to keep them, and since money was a key issue we paid them what they were then worth in the market.
  • The result for us was a much lower turnover and greater longevity with us and with our clients. This cut our time recruiting and onboarding and training new staff. Instead, we had added time to bring our staff along to perform at higher levels … and for which we gladly paid them. Our colleagues got mired in a cycle of ongoing staff replacement recruiting and onboarding that we completely avoided. And this accelerated our growth.
  • Our accelerated growth also led us to innovate more and provide added services to clients, increasing client satisfaction and our income. Clients also appreciated that we did not have a revolving door of new staff. 
  • We actually had a revolving door, but it was for controlled growth for staff and more efficient client servicing, without disruption to clients. We realized staff could not grow if they remained on the same clients indefinitely. What we did was have someone who worked on a client start after two years to train a newbie for a year and then step back and become their supervisor. The newbie worked another year by themselves, and then they were ready to train the next newbie on that client. The clients saw continuity and because of our systems there was never a break in the services or deliverables. Depending on the dynamics, occasionally the supervisor remained on that client as the manager and performed many of the services a partner would have performed.  
  • We trained staff well in the technical areas and also on our systems, methods and culture. Further, because of our systemized approach to training, a one-year staff person was able to train an entry-level person, just as a two-year person was able to train the one-year person, and this worked all the way up the experience ladder. Our managers were trained by us and started their careers with us.
  • I recall reading a cartoon showing two older partners talking to each other. One said, “Why should we spend effort training staff who will then leave?” The other said, “Suppose we do not train them and they stay!”
  • We trained to have staff perform at the highest level they were capable of as long as they worked for us. If we only got an extra year out of them, it was well worth the effort and expense, but we usually got more than that extra year.
  • Another thing we did was pay for overtime hours in the next paycheck. They worked extra, they were paid for it! If we weren’t able to generate added revenue from their added work, we did not deserve to remain in business. Our staff never complained about working overtime, and I was told that some spouses encouraged it because of the added payment.
  • As for overtime, we only asked staff to work extra if there was work that needed to be done. This certainly was during the couple or three weeks before March and April 15, but not usually during other periods except if there were special circumstances.

There is a lot more, but the shallow reason that the pipeline is drying up because of low or inadequate salary could easily be remedied. We have it within our power to change this. When will you start?

I posted an earlier column with four reasons why staff remain with a firm. Money was one of them and the others were, growth, experience and flexibility.

Do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] with your practice management questions or about engagements you might not be able to perform.

Continue Reading

Accounting

New IRS regs put some partnership transactions under spotlight

Published

on

Final regulations now identify certain partnership related-party “basis shifting” transactions as “transactions of interest” subject to the rules for reportable transactions.

The final regs apply to related partners and partnerships that participated in the identified transactions through distributions of partnership property or the transfer of an interest in the partnership by a related partner to a related transferee. Affected taxpayers and their material advisors are subject to the disclosure requirements for reportable transactions. 

During the proposal process, the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service received comments that the final regulations should avoid unnecessary burdens for small, family-run businesses, limit retroactive reporting, provide more time for reporting and differentiate publicly traded partnerships, among other suggested changes now reflected in the regs.

  • Increased dollar threshold for basis increase in a TOI. The threshold amount for a basis increase in a TOI has been increased from $5 million to $25 million for tax years before 2025 and $10 million for tax years after. 
  • Limited retroactive reporting for open tax years. Reporting has been limited for open tax years to those that fall within a six-year lookback window. The six-year lookback is the 72-month period before the first month of a taxpayer’s most recent tax year that began before the publication of the final regulations (slated for Jan. 14 in the Federal Register). Also, the threshold amount for a basis increase in a TOI during the six-year lookback is $25 million. 
  • Additional time for reporting. Taxpayers have an additional 90 days from the final regulation’s publication to file disclosure statements for TOIs in open tax years for which a return has already been filed and that fall within the six-year lookback. Material advisors have an additional 90 days to file their disclosure statements for tax statements made before the final regulations. 
  • Publicly traded partnerships. Because PTPs are typically owned by a large number of unrelated owners, the final regulations exclude many owners of PTPs from the disclosure rules. 

The identified transactions generally result from either a tax-free distribution of partnership property to a partner that is related to one or more partners of the partnership, or the tax-free transfer of a partnership interest by a related partner to a related transferee.

IRS headquarters

Bloomberg via Getty Images

The tax-free distribution or transfer generates an increase to the basis of the distributed property or partnership property of $10 million or more ($25 million or more in the case of a TOI undertaken in a tax year before 2025) under the rules of IRC Sections 732(b) or (d), 734(b) or 743(b), but for which no corresponding tax is paid. 

The basis increase to the distributed or partnership property allows the related parties to decrease taxable income through increased cost recovery allowances or decrease taxable gain (or increase taxable loss) on the disposition of the property.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Treasury, IRS propose rules on commercial clean vehicles, issue guidance on clean fuels

Published

on

The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service proposed new rules for the tax credit for qualified commercial clean vehicles, along with guidance on claiming tax credits for clean fuel under the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the credit for qualified commercial clean vehicles (under Section 45W of the Tax Code) says the credit can be claimed by purchasing and placing in service qualified commercial clean vehicles, including certain battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid EVs, fuel cell electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid fuel cell electric vehicles.  

The credit is the lesser amount of either 30% of the vehicle’s basis (15% for plug-in hybrid EVs) or the vehicle’s incremental cost in excess of a vehicle comparable in size or use powered solely by gasoline or diesel. A credit up to $7,500 can be claimed for a single qualified commercial clean vehicle for cars and light-duty trucks (with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of less than 14,000 pounds), or otherwise $40,000 for vehicles like electric buses and semi-trucks (with a GVWR equal to or greater than 14,000 pounds).

“The release of Treasury’s proposed rules for the commercial clean vehicle credit marks an important step forward in the Biden-Harris Administration’s work to lower transportation costs and strengthen U.S. energy security,” said U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyemo in a statement Friday. “Today’s guidance will provide the clarity and certainty needed to grow investment in clean vehicle manufacturing.”

The NPRM issued today proposes rules to implement the 45W credit, including proposing various pathways for taxpayers to determine the incremental cost of a qualifying commercial clean vehicle for purposes of calculating the amount of 45W credit. For example, the NPRM proposes that taxpayers can continue to use the incremental cost safe harbors such as those set out in Notice 2023-9 and Notice 2024-5, may rely on a manufacturer’s written cost determination to determine the incremental cost of a qualifying commercial clean vehicle, or may calculate the incremental cost of a qualifying clean vehicle versus an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle based on the differing costs of the vehicle powertrains.

The NPRM also proposes rules regarding the types of vehicles that qualify for the credit and aligns certain definitional concepts with those applicable to the 30D and 25E credits. In addition, the NPRM proposes that vehicles are only eligible if they are used 100% for trade or business, excepting de minimis personal use, and that the 45W credit is disallowed for qualified commercial clean vehicles that were previously allowed a clean vehicle credit under 30D or 45W. 

The notice asks for comments over the next 60 days on the proposed regulations such as issues related to off-road mobile machinery, including approaches that might be adopted in applying the definition of mobile machinery to off-road vehicles and whether to create a product identification number system for such machinery in order to comply with statutory requirements. A public hearing is scheduled for April 28, 2025.

Clean Fuels Production Credit

The Treasury the IRS also released guidance Friday on the Clean Fuels Production Credit under Section 45Z of the Tax Code.

Section 45Z provides a tax credit for the production of transportation fuels with lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions below certain levels. The credit is in effect in 2025 and is for sustainable aviation fuel and non-SAF transportation fuels.

The guidance includes both a notice of intent to propose regulations on the Section 45Z credit and a notice providing the annual emissions rate table for Section 45Z, which refers taxpayers to the appropriate methodologies for determining the lifecycle GHG emissions of their fuel. In conjunction with the guidance released Friday, the Department of Energy plans to release the 45ZCF-GREET model for use in determining emissions rates for 45Z in the coming days.

“This guidance will help put America on the cutting-edge of future innovation in aviation and renewable fuel while also lowering transportation costs for consumers,” said Adeyemo in a statement. “Decarbonizing transportation and lowering costs is a win-win for America.”

Section 45Z provides a per-gallon (or gallon-equivalent) tax credit for producers of clean transportation fuels based on the carbon intensity of production. It consolidates and replaces pre-Inflation Reduction Act credits for biodiesel, renewable diesel, and alternative fuels, and an IRA credit for sustainable aviation fuel. Like several other IRA credits, Section 45Z requires the Treasury to establish rules for measuring carbon intensity of production, based on the Clean Air Act’s definition of “lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.”

The guidance offers more clarity on various issues, including which entities and fuels are eligible for the credit, and how taxpayers determine lifecycle emissions. Specifically, the guidance outlines the Treasury and the IRS’s intent to define key concepts and provide certain rules in a future rulemaking, including clarifying who is eligible for a credit.

The Treasury and the IRS intend to provide that the producer of the eligible clean fuel is eligible to claim the 45Z credit. In keeping with the statute, compressors and blenders of fuel would not be eligible.

Under Section 45Z, a fuel must be “suitable for use” as a transportation fuel. The Treasury and the IRS intend to propose that 45Z-creditable transportation fuel must itself (or when blended into a fuel mixture) have either practical or commercial fitness for use as a fuel in a highway vehicle or aircraft. The guidance clarifies that marine fuels that are otherwise suitable for use in highway vehicles or aircraft, such as marine diesel and methanol, are also 45Z eligible.

Specifically, this would mean that neat SAF that is blended into a fuel mixture that has practical or commercial fitness for use as a fuel would be creditable. Additionally, natural gas alternatives such as renewable natural gas would be suitable for use if produced in a manner such that if it were further compressed it could be used as a transportation fuel.

Today’s guidance publishes the annual emissions rate table that directs taxpayers to the appropriate methodologies for calculating carbon intensities for types and categories of 45Z-eligible fuels.

The table directs taxpayers to use the 45ZCF-GREET model to determine the emissions rate of non-SAF transportation fuel, and either the 45ZCF-GREET model or methodologies from the International Civil Aviation Organization (“CORSIA Default” or “CORSIA Actual”) for SAF.

Taxpayers can use the Provisional Emissions Rate process to obtain an emissions rate for fuel pathway and feedstock combinations not specified in the emissions rate table when guidance is published for the PER process. Guidance for the PER process is expected at a later date.

Outlining climate smart agriculture practices

The guidance released Friday states that the Treasury intends to propose rules for incorporating the emissions benefits from climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices for cultivating domestic corn, soybeans, and sorghum as feedstocks for SAF and non-SAF transportation fuels. These options would be available to taxpayers after Treasury and the IRS propose regulations for the section 45Z credit, including rules for CSA, and the 45ZCF-GREET model is updated to enable calculation of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rates for CSA crops, taking into account one or more CSA practices.    

CSA practices have multiple benefits, including lower overall GHG emissions associated with biofuels production and increased adoption of farming practices that are associated with other environmental benefits, such as improved water quality and soil health. Agencies across the Federal government have taken important steps to advance the adoption of CSA. In April, Treasury established a first-of-its-kind pilot program to encourage CSA practices within guidance on the section 40B SAF tax credit. Treasury has received and continues to consider substantial feedback from stakeholders on that pilot program. The U.S. Department of Agriculture invested more than $3 billion in 135 Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities projects. Combined with the historic investment of $19.5 billion in CSA from the Inflation Reduction Act, the department is estimated to support CSA implementation on over 225 million acres in the next 5 years as well as measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification to better understand the climate impacts of these practices.

In addition, in June, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a Request for Information requesting public input on procedures for reporting and verification of CSA practices and measurement of related emissions benefits, and received substantial input from a wide array of stakeholders. The USDA is currently developing voluntary technical guidelines for CSA reporting and verification. The Treasury and the IRS expect to consider those guidelines in proposing rules recognizing the benefits of CSA for purposes of the Section 45Z credit.

Continue Reading

Accounting

IRS and Treasury propose regs on 401(k) and 403(b) automatic enrollment, Roth IRA catchup contributions

Published

on

The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service issued proposed regulations Friday for several provisions of the SECURE 2.0 Act, including ones related to automatic enrollment in 401(k) and 403(b) plans, and the Roth IRA catchup rule.

SECURE 2.0 Act passed at the end of 2022 and contained an extensive list of provisions related to retirement planning, like the original SECURE Act of 2019, with some being phased in over five years.

One set of proposed regulations involves provisions requiring newly-created 401(k) and 403(b) plans to automatically enroll eligible employees starting with the 2025 plan year. In general, unless an employee opts out, a plan needs to automatically enroll the employee at an initial contribution rate of at least 3% of the employee’s pay and automatically increase the initial contribution rate by one percentage point each year until it reaches at least 10% of pay. The requirement generally applies to 401(k) and 403(b) plans established after Dec. 29, 2022, the date the SECURE 2.0 Act became law, with exceptions for new and small businesses, church plans and governmental plans.

The proposed regulations include guidance to plan administrators for properly implementing this requirement and are proposed to apply to plan years that start more than six months after the date that final regulations are issued. Before the final regulations are applicable, plan administrators need to apply a reasonable, good faith interpretation of the statute.

Roth IRA catchup contributions

The Treasury and the IRS also issued proposed regulations Friday addressing several SECURE 2.0 Act provisions involving catch-up contributions, which are additional contributions under a 401(k) or similar workplace retirement plan that generally are allowed with respect to employees who are age 50 or older.

That includes proposed rules related to a provision requiring that catch-up contributions made by certain higher-income participants be designated as after-tax Roth contributions.

The proposed regulations provide guidance for plan administrators to implement and comply with the new Roth catch-up rule and reflect comments received in response to Notice 2023-62, issued in August 2023. 

The proposed regulations also provide guidance relating to the increased catch-up contribution limit under the SECURE 2.0 Act for certain retirement plan participants. Affected participants include employees between the ages of 60-63 and employees in newly established SIMPLE plans.

The IRS and the Treasury are asking for comments on both sets of proposed regulations. 

Continue Reading

Trending