Last fall, George Kurtz, the chief executive officer of CrowdStrike Holdings Inc., gave investors a quarterly financial update that sent shares soaring. Among the details Kurtz highlighted was a major deal to sell cybersecurity tools for use by the U.S. government.
“Identity threat protection wins in the quarter included an eight-figure total deal value win in the federal government,” Kurtz said on the earnings call after markets closed on Nov. 28, 2023.
Kurtz was referring to a $32 million order from Carahsoft Technology Corp., which serves as a middleman between technology companies and government agencies, that arrived on the last day of CrowdStrike’s fiscal third quarter. It was for identity threat protection software intended for the Internal Revenue Service, according to documents from both companies.
But the IRS never bought the software, according to records reviewed by Bloomberg News and people with knowledge of the situation.
Still, Carahsoft has been making on-time payments on the $32 million to CrowdStrike, according to the cybersecurity firm. When asked for comment by Bloomberg News, both companies explained that they had a “non-cancellable order” between them. They declined to say why that deal was struck without a purchase in place from the IRS.
Some legal and accounting experts, who reviewed the arrangement at Bloomberg’s request, said it raises red flags that merit scrutiny from regulators. The deal also raised concerns within CrowdStrike — according to people familiar with the matter and the company itself — and many specifics of the transaction remain unclear.
Depending on how CrowdStrike accounted for the deal in financial statements — the company didn’t explain those details — it was big enough that it could have made the difference between the company beating or missing Wall Street projections for the period. The day after CrowdStrike reported results for the record quarter, its shares rose 10%.
Jeremy Fielding, a spokesperson representing CrowdStrike, dismissed employees’ concerns as baseless and the order’s timing as insignificant. The Austin, Texas-based cybersecurity firm closes deals “throughout the quarter, starting the first day and often through the last day,” he said.
“The Carahsoft deal went through a separate and extensive review,” he said, adding that it “was given a clean bill of health.” Fielding characterized the experts’ comments as “inaccurately speculating about a transaction that CrowdStrike confirmed fully met” an accounting standard on revenue from contracts.
CrowdStrike “closed and recognized” the deal once Carahsoft placed the order, and its booking of the revenue is consistent with standard accounting principles, according to Thomas Clare and Elizabeth Locke, lawyers representing the cybersecurity company.
A representative of Carahsoft, Mary Lange, said in an email, “Carahsoft is a private company and we do not disclose financial information or customer details. That said, we placed a valid, non-cancellable order with CrowdStrike and stand by that transaction.” The company declined to answer any other questions.
The IRS didn’t answer detailed questions. The tax agency said in a statement that it doesn’t hold any contracts with CrowdStrike directly and, in keeping with federal procurement rules, acquires its software and services through third-party vendors.
No IRS contract or payments matching the deal appear in the public government spending database USASPENDING.gov. The database excludes some information — for instance, material that could compromise national security. But the tax agency’s purchases of CrowdStrike’s products through vendors total less than $10 million, according to a person familiar with the matter.
This story is based on records of the transaction and interviews with five people familiar with the matter, who requested that their names not be published because they aren’t authorized to discuss it.
“It raises an eyebrow,” said Lawrence Cunningham, director of the University of Delaware’s John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance.
“It appears on its face to be uncompensated risk, and rational businesses don’t usually accept uncompensated risk,” Cunningham said, referring to Carahsoft’s payments to CrowdStrike.
Carahsoft declined to answer questions about whether it was taking a loss on the deal or if it found a way to recoup the money.
In recent months, separate issues at CrowdStrike and Carahsoft have drawn negative attention and government scrutiny.
CrowdStrike, with annual revenues of more than $3 billion, sells security software to thousands of businesses and government agencies globally. But in July, a flawed update from the firm knocked out millions of Windows computers around the world, disrupting air travel, medical care, banks and other businesses. Executives have apologized repeatedly, including before members of Congress; the company’s share price plummeted after the outage and hasn’t fully recovered.
Carahsoft is a dominant player among resellers and distributors that help technology companies navigate the complexities of selling to government agencies. In September, agents from the FBI and the Department of Defense searched the company’s Reston, Virginia, headquarters. Lange, the Carahsoft spokesperson, previously said the company was cooperating with the FBI probe and that it involved “an investigation into a company with which Carahsoft has done business in the past.”
The Justice Department is also conducting a civil probe of Carahsoft and software giant SAP SE for potential price fixing on government contracts. The German firm is cooperating with the civil probe, a spokesperson said. SAP chief financial officer Dominik Asam told Bloomberg News that SAP had “gotten written assurance from Carahsoft” that the FBI search was “entirely unrelated” to SAP and a U.S. subsidiary.
There’s no known link between CrowdStrike and either the civil investigation or search of Carahsoft’s office. Fielding, the CrowdStrike representative, said neither investigation is connected to the cybersecurity company.
A potential deal for the IRS dates to early 2023, when CrowdStrike sales representatives began talking with agency officials about buying an identity verification tool to help prevent fraud in a new program that lets people file their taxes directly with the government, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Work continued on a potential deal in the following months, but by mid-October it had become clear to at least some CrowdStrike staff that the IRS wouldn’t order the software before the company’s quarter closed at the end of the month, the people said.
Nevertheless, on Halloween, Carahsoft ordered $32.25 million worth of subscription access to CrowdStrike’s “Government National Identity Threat Protection” service for as many as 40 million users, according to records and two of the people. The order split the purchase into four $8 million payments, with the final payment due at the end of this October. The order indicates that Carahsoft should be billed for the CrowdStrike software and that it should be shipped to the IRS’s Washington headquarters.
That day, CrowdStrike sent an automated email to dozens of staff, saying, “Opportunity has been Closed Won for Internal Revenue Service (IRS).”
The closing of the deal and Kurtz referring to it on the earnings call alarmed some staff who raised internal concerns that CrowdStrike was “pre-booking” a transaction that they viewed as incomplete because it was unclear whether the IRS would ever make the large purchase, according to three of the people. U.S. regulators have in some cases sued and fined companies over alleged pre-booking, also known as channel stuffing, claiming they misled investors by improperly recognizing revenue to inflate their financial figures.
Fielding said it was “demonstrably false” that there was any pre-booking.
That quarter, $32 million was enough to make the difference between CrowdStrike beating analysts’ expectations on two key financial metrics — annual recurring revenue and net new annual recurring revenue — or falling short of them. CrowdStrike highlighted both metrics in the earnings announcement for the quarter, but the company declined to answer questions about whether the deal was recorded under them.
Annual recurring revenue is widely used by software companies to track income from subscriptions. CrowdStrike has consistently emphasized it with investors, writing in a 2019 regulatory filing that it “is a key metric to measure our business.”
Theresa Gabaldon, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, said that for CrowdStrike to appropriately book the deal as revenue it would need to have not only received payment but also delivered the product. Neither CrowdStrike nor Carahsoft answered questions about what became of the subscription software.
“I characterize it as raising red flags,” Gabaldon, who teaches securities regulation, law and accounting, said of the deal.
Whatever happened, Carahsoft was among the companies that CrowdStrike feted at a June “partner symposium.” There, Kurtz and other CrowdStrike staff mingled with guests at a luxury resort on the southern California coast. A video shows attendees enjoying drinks and live string music on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean and getting sushi-making lessons from a celebrity chef.
At the event, CrowdStrike named Carahsoft “Distributor of the Year.”
What’s on the horizon for accounting? The Top 100 Most Influential People offer their predictions for the near future, responding to our question: “What do you think will be the biggest change in accounting in the next 10 years?”
The vast majority of this year’s influencers expect artificial intelligence and its transformational impact on technology, operations, the workforce and much more to be the most significant change catalyst. But other prognostications include new business models, new methods of recruiting and training professionals, and shifting trends in transactional activity and funding sources for the profession.
(To see the full responses of all the candidates for the Top 100, click here. And to see who the Top 100 voted the most influential, see here.)
Lyft Inc. accused the city of San Francisco in a lawsuit of overcharging it $100 million for taxes over five years by unfairly characterizing the compensation earned by drivers who use its app as company revenue.
The company said its hometown calculated its taxes from 2019 to 2023 based on the total amount of money that passengers paid for rides. But Lyft said that isn’t how its business model works.
“Lyft considers drivers as its customers,” the company said in the complaint filed in state court. “Accordingly, Lyft recognizes revenue from rideshare as being comprised of fees paid to Lyft by drivers, not charges paid by riders to drivers. Lyft does not treat drivers as employees for any purpose.”
The tax dispute points to a broader, yearslong controversy around how Lyft, Uber Technologies Inc. and other so-called gig economy firms rely on contractors and avoid having to provide employment benefits. The companies have collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars to settle claims in the U.S. and abroad that they have misclassified workers without reaching a permanent global resolution. In California, drivers were deemed independent contractors under a 2020 initiative that the companies funded and voters approved in 2020.
Lyft said San Francisco’s formula for assessing payroll, gross receipts and homelessness taxes has violated the company’s constitutional rights by forcing it to pay far more than its fair share.
The city’s methodology is “distortive and will grossly overstate Lyft’s gross receipts attributable to Lyft’s business activities in the city,” the company’s lawyers wrote. They noted that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission doesn’t consider driver compensation as part of Lyft’s revenue, nor is it recognized as gross income for federal and state income tax purposes.
The company is seeking refunds for the amounts it says it overpaid, including interest, penalties and fees.
“Lyft doesn’t take operating in San Francisco for granted and we love serving both riders and drivers in our hometown city,” the company said in a statement. “But, we believe the city is incorrect with how it calculated our gross receipts tax for the years 2019-2023.”
Representatives of the San Francisco City Attorney’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.
It’s not the first lawsuit faulting tax authorities for misconstruing the ride-hailing business model. Uber is challenging Georgia tax authorities over about $9 million in sales tax the company says should have been collected from drivers. The company’s arguments got a wary reception from a state appeals court panel this month.
General Motors Co. last year accused San Francisco in a lawsuit of unfairly taxing it $108 million over seven years, despite the automaker having very low sales and almost no personnel in the city. The company said the city used the presence of its Cruise self-driving unit to tie its tax bill to a portion of GM’s global revenue. The case settled for undisclosed terms in February.
The case is Lyft Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, CGC24620845, California Superior Court (San Francisco).
A well-maintained fixed asset register is a cornerstone of effective financial management for any organization. Often underestimated, this detailed inventory of a company’s tangible assets goes far beyond an accounting requirement—it’s a vital tool for enhancing financial accuracy, operational efficiency, and strategic decision-making. In this article, we’ll explore the significance of a fixed asset register and how maintaining it can propel business success.
At its core, a fixed asset register is a comprehensive list of all significant physical assets owned by a business. This typically includes property, equipment, vehicles, machinery, and other long-term investments. However, its true value lies in its ability to provide insights that extend beyond simply cataloging assets.
Ensuring Accurate Asset Valuation One of the primary functions of a fixed asset register is to maintain accurate asset valuations. By updating the register to account for depreciation, improvements, or changes in market value, businesses can ensure their financial statements remain precise and in compliance with accounting standards. Accurate valuations not only inspire stakeholder confidence but are also crucial for meeting regulatory requirements.
Implementing Asset Tagging and Tracking A robust tagging and tracking system is essential for an effective fixed asset register. Using technologies like barcodes, RFID tags, or GPS tracking for mobile assets minimizes the risk of theft or loss and simplifies the process of physical verification during audits. This level of control provides added security and reduces the administrative burden associated with managing assets.
Leveraging Fixed Asset Management Software Specialized fixed asset management software can streamline the maintenance process significantly. These tools automate depreciation calculations, generate detailed reports, and even forecast maintenance requirements. By leveraging such technology, businesses can save time, improve accuracy, and enhance operational efficiency.
Reconciliation and Financial Consistency Regular reconciliation between the fixed asset register and the general ledger is essential to maintain consistency in financial records. This practice helps detect and resolve errors or discrepancies promptly, ensuring financial reports are reliable and up-to-date.
Aiding Strategic Decision-Making A well-maintained fixed asset register is an invaluable resource for strategic planning. It offers insights into asset utilization, helps determine when replacements are necessary, and supports forecasting for capital expenditures. Businesses can make data-driven decisions that maximize the return on their capital investments and enhance overall operational efficiency.
Supporting Insurance and Disaster Recovery For insurance purposes, an accurate fixed asset register is indispensable. It ensures that all assets are adequately covered, simplifies the claims process, and plays a critical role in disaster recovery scenarios. In times of crisis, having a detailed record can make the difference between a swift recovery and prolonged disruption.
Conclusion A meticulously maintained fixed asset register is more than a compliance requirement; it is a strategic advantage. It embodies financial precision, operational control, and informed asset management, enabling businesses to operate more efficiently and make better decisions. By prioritizing the upkeep of this essential tool, finance professionals and business leaders can foster resilience and drive sustainable growth.
Properly managing a fixed asset register not only strengthens day-to-day operations but also positions an organization for long-term success in an increasingly competitive business landscape.