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.
The Financial Accounting Standards Board issued a proposed accounting standards update Tuesday to establish authoritative guidance on the accounting for government grants received by business entities.
U.S. GAAP currently doesn’t provide specific authoritative guidance about the recognition, measurement, and presentation of a grant received by a business entity from a government. Instead, many businesses currently apply the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation’s International Accounting Standard 20, Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance, by analogy, at least in part, to account for government grants.
In 2022 FASB issued an Invitation to Comment, Accounting for Government Grants by Business Entities—Potential Incorporation of IAS 20, Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance, into GAAP. In response, most of FASB’s stakeholders supported leveraging the guidance in IAS 20 to develop accounting guidance for government grants in GAAP, believing it would reduce diversity in practice because entities would apply the guidance instead of analogizing to it or other guidance, thus narrowing the variability in accounting for government grants.
The proposed ASU would leverage the guidance in IAS 20 with targeted improvements to establish guidance on how to recognize, measure, and present a government grant including (1) a grant related to an asset and (2) a grant related to income. It also would require, consistent with current disclosure requirements, disclosure about the nature of the government grant received, the accounting policies used to account for the grant, and significant terms and conditions of the grant, among others.
FASB is asking for comments on the proposed ASU by March 31, 2025.
“It will not be a cut and paste of IAS 20,” said FASB technical director Jackson Day during a session at Financial Executives International’s Current Financial Reporting Insights conference last week. “First of all, the scope is going to be a little bit different, probably a little bit more narrow. Second of all, the threshold of recognizing a government grant will be based on ‘probable,’ and ‘probable’ as we think of it in U.S. GAAP terms. We’re also going to do some work to make clarifications, etc. There is a little bit different thinking around the government grants for assets. There will be a deferred income approach or a cost accumulation approach that you can pick. And finally, there will be different disclosures because the disclosures will be based on what the board had previously issued, but it does leverage IAS 20. A few other things it does as far as reducing diversity. Most people analogized IAS 20. That was our anecdotal findings. But what does that mean? How exactly do they do that? This will set forth the specifics. It will also eliminate from the population those that were analogizing to ASC 450 or 958, because there were a few of those too. So it will go a long way in reducing diversity. It will also head down a model that will be generally internationally converged, which we still think about. We still collaborate with the staff [of the International Accounting Standards Board]. We don’t have any joint projects, but we still do our best when it makes sense to align on projects.”
Mauled Again (http://mauledagain.blogspot.com/): Not long ago, about a dozen states would seize property for failure to pay property taxes and, instead of simply taking their share of unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties and returning the excess to the property owner, they would pocket the entire proceeds of the sales. Did high court intervention stem this practice? Not so much.
Current Federal Tax Developments (https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/): In Surk LLC v. Commissioner, the Tax Court was presented with the question of basis computations related to an interest in a partnership. The taxpayer mistakenly deducted losses that exceeded the limitation in IRC Sec. 704(d), raising the question: Should the taxpayer reduce its basis in subsequent years by the amount of those disallowed losses or compute the basis by treating those losses as if they were never deducted?
Parametric (https://www.parametricportfolio.com/blog): If your clients are using more traditional commingled products for their passive exposures, they may not know how much tax money they’re leaving on the table. A look at possible advantages of a separately managed account.
Turbotax (https://blog.turbotax.intuit.com): Whether they’re talking diversification, gainful hobby or income stream, what to remind them about the tax benefits of investing in real estate.
The National Association of Tax Professionals (https://blog.natptax.com/): Q&A from a recent webinar on day cares’ unique income and expense categories.
Boyum & Barenscheer (https://www.myboyum.com/blog/): For larger manufacturers, compliance under IRC 263A is essential. And for all manufacturers, effective inventory management goes beyond balancing stock levels. Key factors affecting inventory accounting for large and small manufacturing businesses.
Withum (https://www.withum.com/resources/): A look at the recent IRS Memorandum 2024-36010 that denied the application of IRC Sec. 245A to dividends received by a controlled foreign corporation.
PwC made a $1.5 million investment to Bryant University, in Smithfield, Rhode Island, to fund the launch of the PwC AI in Accounting Fellowship.
The experiential learning program allows undergraduate students to explore AI’s impact in accounting by way of engaging in research with faculty, corporate-sponsored projects and professional development that blends traditional accounting principles with AI-driven tools and platforms.
The first cohort of PwC AI in Accounting Fellows will be awarded to members of the Bryant Honors Program planning to study accounting. The fellowship funds can be applied to various educational resources, including conference fees, specialized data sheets, software and travel.
“Aligned with our Vision 2030 strategic plan and our commitment to experiential learning and academic excellence, the fellowship also builds upon PwC’s longstanding relationship with Bryant University,” Bryant University president Ross Gittell said in a statement. “This strong partnership supports institutional objectives and includes the annual PwC Accounting Careers Leadership Institute for rising high school seniors, the PwC Endowed Scholarship Fund, the PwC Book Fund, and the PwC Center for Diversity and Inclusion.”
Bob Calabro, a PwC US partner and 1988 Bryant University alumnus and trustee, helped lead the development of the program.
“We are excited to introduce students to the many opportunities available to them in the accounting field and to prepare them to make the most of those opportunities, This program further illustrates the strong relationship between PwC and Bryant University, where so many of our partners and staff began their career journey in accounting” Calabro said in a statement.
“Bryant’s Accounting faculty are excited to work with our PwC AI in Accounting Fellows to help them develop impactful research projects and create important experiential learning opportunities,” professor Daniel Ames, chair of Bryant’s accounting department, said in a statement. “This program provides an invaluable opportunity for students to apply AI concepts to real-world accounting, shaping their educational journey in significant ways.”