Connect with us

Accounting

Both auditors, management must prepare for AI impact

Published

on

As AI works its way into more and more business processes, it has become increasingly important for auditors to understand where, why, when and how organizations use it and what impact it is having not only on the entity itself but its various stakeholders as well. 

Speaking at a virtual conference on AI and finance hosted by Financial Executives International, Ryan Hittner, an audit and assurance principal with Big Four firm Deloitte, noted that since the technology is still relatively new it has not yet had time to significantly impact the audit process. However, given AI’s rapid rate of development and adoption throughout the economy, he expects this will change soon, and it won’t be long before auditors are routinely examining AI systems as a natural part of the engagement. As auditors are preparing for this future, he recommended that companies do as well. 

“We expect lots of AI tools to inject themselves into multiple areas. We think most companies should be getting ready for this. If you’re using AI and doing it in a way where no one is aware it is being used, or without controls on top of it, I think there is some risk for audits, both internal and external,” he said. 

Robot Audit
Elevated View Of Robotic Hand Examining Financial Data With Magnifying Glass

Andrey Popov/stock.adobe.com

There are several risks that are especially relevant to the audit process. The primary risk, he said, is accuracy. While models are improving in this area, they still have the tendency to make things up, which might be fine for creative writing but terrible for financial data reporting. Second, AI tends to lack transparency, which is especially problematic for auditors, as their decision making process is often opaque, so unlike a human, an AI may not necessarily be able to explain why it classified an invoice a particular way, or how it decided on this specific chart of accounts for that invoice. Finally, there is the fact that AI can be unpredictable. Auditors, he said, are used to processes with consistent steps and consistent results that can be reviewed and tested; AI, however, can produce wildly inconsistent outputs even from the same prompt, making it difficult to test. 

This does not mean auditors are helpless, but that they need to adjust their approach. Hittner said that an auditor will likely need to consider the impact of AI on the entity and its internal controls over financial reporting; assess the impact of AI on their risk assessment procedures; consider an entity’s use of AI when identifying relevant controls and AI technologies or applications; and assess the impact of AI on their audit response.  

In order to best assist auditors evaluating AI, management should be able to answer relevant questions when it comes to their AI systems. Hittner said auditors might want to know how the entity assesses the appropriate of AI for the intended purpose, what governance controls are in place around the use of AI, how the entity measures and monitors AI performance metrics, whether or how often they backtest the AI system, and what is the level of human oversight over the model and what approach does the entity take for overriding outputs when necessary.

“Management should really be able to answer these kinds of questions,” he said, adding that one of the biggest questions an auditor might ask is “how did the organization get comfortable with the result of what is coming out of this box. Is it a low risk area with lots of review levels? … How do you measure the risk and how do you measure whether something is acceptable for use or not, and what is your threshold? If it’s 100% accurate, that’s pretty good, but no backtesting, no understanding of performance would give auditors pause.” 

He also said that it’s important that organizations be transparent about their AI use not just with auditors but stakeholders as well. He said cases are already starting to appear where people unaware that generative AI was producing the information they were reviewing. 

Morgan Dove, a Deloitte senior manager within the AI & Algorithmic Assurance practice, stressed the importance of human review and oversight of AI systems, as well as documenting how that oversight works for auditors. When should there be human review? Anywhere in the AI lifecycle, according to Dove. 

“Even the most powerful AIs can make mistakes, which is why human review is essential for accuracy and reliability. Depending on use case and model, human review may be incorporated in any stage of the AI lifecycle, starting with data processing and feature selection to development and training, validation and testing, to ongoing use,” she said. 

But how does one perform this oversight? Dove said data control is a big part of it, as the quality and accuracy of a model hinges on its data stores. Organizations need to verify the quality, completeness, relevance and accuracy of any data they put into an AI, not just the training data but also what is fed into the AI in its day to day functions. 

She also said that organizations need to archive the inputs and outputs of their AI models, without this documentation it becomes very difficult for auditors to review the system because it allows them to trace the inputs to the outputs to test consistency and reliability. When archiving data she said organizations should include details like the name and title of the dataset, and its source. They should also document the prompts fed into the system, with timestamps, so they can possibly be linked with related outputs. 

Dove added that effective change management is also essential, as even little changes in model behaviors can create large variations in performance and outputs. It is therefore important to document any changes to the model, along with the rationale for the change, the expected impact and the results of testing, all of which supports a robust audit trail. She said this should be done regardless of whether the organization is using its own proprietary models or a third party vendor model. 

“There are maybe two nuances. One is, as you know, vendor solutions are proprietary so that contributes to the black box lack of transparency, and consequently does not provide users with the appropriate visibility … into the testing and how the given model makes decisions. So organizations may need to arrange for additional oversight in outputs made by the AI system in question. The second point is around the integration and adoption of a chosen solution, they need to figure out how they process data from existing systems, they also need to devote necessary resources to train personnel in using the solution and making sure there’s controls at the input and output levels as well as pertinent data integration points,” she said. 

When monitoring an AI, what exactly should people be looking for? Dove said people have already developed many different metrics for AI performance. Some include what’s called a SemScore, which measures how similar the meaning of the generated text is to the reference text, BLEU (bilingual evaluation understudy), which measures how many words or phrases in the generated text match the reference text, or ROC-AUC (Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve) which measures the overall ability of an AI model to distinguish between positive and negative classes.

Mark Hughes, an audit and assurance consultant with Deloitte, added that humans can also monitor the Character Error Rate, which measures the exact accuracy of an output down to the character (important for processes like calculating the exact dollar amount of an invoice), Word Error Rate, which is similar but does the evaluation at the word level, and the “Levenshtein distance,” defined as the number of single character edits needed to fix an extracted text to see how far away the output is from the ground truth text. 

Hittner said that even if an organization is only just experimenting with AI now, it is critical to understand where AI is used, what tools the finance and accounting function have at their disposal to use, and how it will impact the financial statement process. 

“Are they just drafting emails, or are they drafting actual parts of the financial statements or management estimates or [are] replacing a control? All these are questions we have to think about,” he said. 

Continue Reading

Accounting

FASB Standardizes Carbon Offsets Accounting Rules

Published

on

FASB Standardizes Carbon Offsets Accounting Rules

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.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Tax Compliance Tools Reduce Risk

Published

on

Automated Tax Compliance Tools Reduce Risk

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.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Continuous Auditing Transforms Corporate ERPs

Published

on

continuous auditing transforms corporate erps

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.

Continue Reading

Trending