Connect with us

Accounting

CFP Board, FPA and others call for tax incentives

Published

on

Five of the most important organizations in the planning profession are pushing for lawmakers to restore tax incentives for financial advice ahead of a massive potential deadline next year.

In a letter to the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, the CFP Board, the Financial Planning Association, the Financial Services Institute, the Investment Adviser Association and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors described the loss of a deduction for financial advice as “an unintended consequence” of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The message last month came about six weeks before one of the most consequential elections for tax policy in recent memory will decide the fate of the many expiring provisions of the law.

READ MORE: Economists want to trash the QBI deduction. What will voters say?

The letter represents an area of agreement among wealth management trade and professional organizations that have split in other policy debates — such as the Biden administration’s rule expanding fiduciary duties to 401(k) rollovers and other types of retirement advice. The groups are just a few of the many that will be vying to get back their highly specific tax credits or deductions once the dust settles on the election and the next president and Congress work out what to do about the parts of the 2017 law with a sunset date at the end of 2025. For example, the doubling of the standard deduction, the end of personal exemptions and other changes have drastically reduced itemization in recent years.

Repeal of “a limited tax deduction for investment advice” as part of the law essentially raised the “cost of financial advice crucial to Main Street investors saving for retirement, college and other important life events such as home purchases,” according to Erin Koeppel, the managing director of government relations and public policy counsel of the CFP Board. Reinstating incentives could bring tax savings for those who weren’t previously eligible for the deduction because their fees didn’t go above 2% of their adjusted gross income, Koeppel noted.    

“Congress and the new administration will have the opportunity to restore and expand tax incentives to make financial advice more accessible to everyday Americans,” she said in a statement. “Tax credits or other subsidies aimed at moderate-income individuals would encourage these investors to seek professional financial advice, which, in turn, will improve financial outcomes. This ultimately will allow a broader range of Americans to access financial advice for major financial milestones and everyday needs.”

READ MORE: How the election — and Senate procedure — will decide tax policies

However, the earlier deduction and other “miscellaneous” items eliminated by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act added up to roughly $32 billion worth of revenue in the first 10 years of the legislation, according to Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst and modeling manager at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The writers of the legislation were seeking “to broaden and simplify the tax base as a partial offset to other tax changes in the law that were scored as losing revenue under the baseline,” Watson said in an email.

“I have not seen any specific evidence suggesting that the repeal of this deduction led to a decline in Americans seeking financial advice or if it noticeably impacted the prices for those services,” he said. “The AGI floor means that a portion of those services were not impacted at all, and taxpayers received tax breaks elsewhere that would offset (or more than offset) this tax increase in insolation.”

In their letter, the organizations argued that the earlier tax incentives “may have appeared inconsequential” at the time of the 2017 law, but the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying economic volatility demonstrated the importance of “having access to affordable, professional advice from trusted financial professionals.” 

“As Congress considers extending the expiring provisions of the TCJA, we ask that Congress restore and expand tax incentives for financial advice, including financial planning,” the organizations wrote in the Sept. 16 letter. “Such tax incentives may include deductions, credits, or a combination thereof. Further, Congress should ensure that these incentives are responsive to the needs of Main Street Americans. All taxpayers need help to obtain the critical financial advice they need now, and any tax incentives should be widely available to American households.”

READ MORE: Why tax-related services drive business for RIAs

They had responded to a call by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, a Republican from Missouri, and other members for public input on the expiring portions of the law. For future occupants of the White House and Congress, the looming deadline will create difficult choices about the economy, the federal budget deficit and a variety of other issues. 

“The challenge heading into next year is every specific tax deduction, credit or other expenditure has a specific use-case and set of folks who argue that they should be retained, but this comes at the cost of greater complexity in our tax code and higher tax rates,” Watson said. “If anything, we may need to further base broadening efforts to ensure the fiscal situation improves federally, and that would include retaining the progress policymakers made on base broadening in 2017. This can help keep tax rates lower, which is helpful for taxpayers and American families across the country.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

Fraud guilty plea from accountant over $1.4M mortgage loan

Published

on

In a case involving phony documents and unpaid taxes, a prominent Washington, D.C.-based accountant pleaded guilty last week for making false statements on a mortgage application after failing to file IRS returns.

A certified public accountant with expertise on tax compliance and due diligence matters, Timothy Trifilo has held partner or managing director positions at several firms for over four decades. He also taught courses in taxation and real estate as an adjunct professor, the original Department of Justice indictment said. Trifilo was hired as a managing director with consulting firm Alvarez & Marsal earlier this year. 

The fraud allegations resulted from a 2023 purchase, when Trifilo applied for a $1.4 million mortgage on a Washington property. When the unidentified issuing bank advised that they could not locate recent tax returns nor approve his application without them, Trifilo submitted copies of 2021 and 2022 IRS filings to the lender, who then originated the loan.  

Investigators later discovered that, in reality, Trifilo had neither filed returns nor paid taxes for any year beginning in 2012 despite income over the subsequent decade totaling more than $7.7 million. His annual earnings ranged between $636,051 and $948,252 during that time, amounts that required him to file individual tax returns each year.

On documentation delivered to the lender in support of the mortgage application, a former colleague of Trifilo was identified as responsible for preparing, reviewing and signing the falsified returns purportedly submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.  

“This individual did not prepare the returns, has never prepared tax returns for Trifilo and did not authorize Trifilo to use his name on the returns and other documents that Trifilo submitted,” a DOJ press release said.  

A grand jury originally indicted Trifilo in September on seven counts, including bank fraud and failure to file tax returns, as well as aggravated identity theft. His actions led to a tax loss for the IRS of $2.1 million. 

He faces a maximum sentence of three decades in prison for defrauding the lender, as well as one year for failure to file tax returns. Sentencing is scheduled for May 19. 

In addition to potential prison time, Trifilo may be required to forfeit the original loan amount and property acquired through bank fraud, the original indictment stated. He also faces a period of supervised release, monetary penalties and restitution. 

Attorneys from the DOJ’s tax division prosecuted the case, with evidence based on findings from the IRS criminal investigation unit. 

Submission of phony forms and documents have played a role in multiple fraud cases this year, pointing to a pain point in the mortgage process that could end up costing lenders. Problems in income and employment data specifically had a defect rate of 37.01% to lead all underwriting categories between March and June this year, according to Aces Quality Management. The number surged from 23.42% in the first quarter.

Aces’ report found overall defect rates of originated mortgages rising in both the first and second quarters. 

Continue Reading

Accounting

AICPA wants SEC to reject PCAOB standard on firm and engagement metrics

Published

on

The American Institute of CPAs is asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s recently adopted standard on firm and engagement metrics, arguing they would drive smaller firms out of the auditing business and affect companies large and small.

The PCAOB voted to adopt the standard last month, along with a related standard on firm reporting, but the new rules still need to be approved by the SEC before they become official and take effect. Under the new rules, PCAOB-registered public accounting firms that audit one or more issuers that qualify as an accelerated filer or large accelerated filer would be required to publicly report specified metrics relating to such audits and their audit practices. The PCAOB made some changes from the originally proposed rules to accommodate some of the objections from the audit industry and public companies, but they remain far reaching in scope. The AICPA argues that the rules would affect more than just accelerated filers and large accelerated filers and could harm smaller companies and their auditors as well. Under SEC rules, accelerated filers are companies that have a public float of between $75 million and $700 million,  annual revenues of $100 million or more, and have filed periodic reports and an annual report within the past year. Larger accelerated filers have a public float of $700 million or more. The AICPA expressed caution soon after the PCAOB voted to approve the new standards, but said it was still studying it. Now it is coming out firmly against the new rules and urging the SEC to reject them.

“Alternative approaches that better balance transparency, cost, and the needs of audit committees, while continuing to support the quality of audit services and choice of audit providers available to perform public company audits and serve the public interest should be pursued, rather than introducing potentially detrimental unproven regulations,” the AICPA said in a comment letter to the SEC.

The AICPA argues the new rules would hurt U.S. capital markets as well as the investing public, in addition to auditing firms of all sizes. 

“We believe these rules will have unintended negative consequences, including driving small and medium-sized firms out of the public company auditing practice,” said AICPA comment letter. “This would result in fewer firms performing audits which are critically important for smaller and medium size companies seeking to access the U.S. capital markets. Consequently, companies will face greater challenges and higher costs in meeting necessary audit requirements to access to the U.S. capital markets. The PCAOB acknowledges that mid-sized and smaller accounting firms serving small to mid-sized public companies will incur substantial, if not prohibitive, costs in complying with the proposed amendments. The final rules reaffirm the PCAOB’s belief that the rules will disproportionately affect smaller firms.”

The AICPA contends it’s overly simplistic to believe the impact of the rules would mostly fall within the market for large accelerated filers. “Smaller audit firms often serve clients of varying sizes, and their departure from the broader public company audit market could result in a substantial loss of audit firm options, particularly for smaller, less complex accelerated filers,” said the AICPA. “The loss of competition and the reduction in available audit firms could lead to higher costs and less favorable engagement terms for these smaller issuers. A landscape in which smaller issuers have fewer options contradicts the PCAOB’s goal of promoting fair competition.”

The AICPA disputes the claim by proponents of the new rules that competition may increase in the non-accelerated filer audit market as firms exit the accelerated filer and large accelerated filer markets. “This fails to account for the fact that non-accelerated filers often rely on firms with specific expertise and resources,” said the AICPA comment letter. “Further, the firms exiting the accelerated filer space may not be able to effectively redeploy their capacity to the non-accelerated filer market. In fact, their exit could lead to a loss of specialized services and a further concentration of resources in the larger end of audit firms, making it harder for non-accelerated filers to secure high-quality, affordable audits.”

The AICPA disagrees with predictions that profitable firms in the larger audit markets could expand their market share against the Big Four. “The resources required to absorb and integrate such capacity are substantial, and many firms may not have the operational flexibility to do so without significant strain on their existing clients and resources,” said the AICPA comment letter. “This further risks driving up audit costs for smaller and mid-sized issuers, which are often less agile and unable to absorb such change without significant disruption.”

The Institute is also concerned about the use of performance metrics within the PCAOB’s inspection and enforcement program, and how they might drive up the risk of enforcement for minor, unintentional reporting errors. It said the PCAOB rejected calls for a threshold based on the severity of reporting errors. The PCAOB declined a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Aiwyn raises $113M in funding from KKR, Bessemer

Published

on

Aiwyn, a provider of technology solutions for accountants and CPA firms, has closed a $113 million funding round.

The money will help the company continue its evolution from its original focus on payments and collections for accounting firms into a more comprehensive tool for practice management.

Among other things, that will include building a universal client experience portal, where accountants can access all of their engagements in one place.

Justin Adams, CEO of Aiwyn

Aiwyn CEO Justin Adams

The funding will also be used to accelerate product development on both the company’s practice management platform, and on a tax solution that it is working on.

“Aiwyn is committed to empowering CPA firms to elevate their operations and client relationships,” said chairman and CEO Justin Adams, in a statement. “With this investment, we are poised to redefine how firms manage their operations from the CRM to the general ledger, while setting a new benchmark for client experiences. For too long, firms have had to decide between a legacy vendor or modern point solutions. We are proud that Aiwyn is a trusted platform for CPA firms.”

The round was led by global investment firm KKR and Bessemer Venture Partners. KKR is funding this investment primarily from its Next Generation Technology III Fund.

“The accounting industry represents a large market that has long been served by legacy players. Aiwyn is solving a clear functionality gap in the market with a solution that is easily adopted and rapidly delivers tangible enhancements to the customer experience, most noticeably through significant reductions in days sales outstanding,” said Jackson Hart, a principal on KKR’s technology growth team, in a statement.

“Aiwyn’s product suite is already quite impressive, but the company is really just getting started on its quest to deliver compelling technology to the accounting industry,” added Bessemer partner Jeremy Levine, in a statement.

Cooley LLP served as legal advisor to Aiwyn; Latham & Watkins LLP served as legal advisor to KKR; and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP served as legal advisor to Bessemer.

Continue Reading

Trending