Connect with us

Accounting

Do states’ SALT workarounds benefit the micro-sized business owner?

Published

on

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act fundamentally reshaped the federal tax landscape. One of its most controversial provisions was the imposition of a $10,000 cap on the deductibility of state and local taxes. For many taxpayers, particularly those in high-tax states, this cap sharply reduced the value of itemized deductions. In response, more than 20 states enacted “SALT cap workarounds,” allowing pass-through entities such as S corporations and partnerships to pay state income tax at the entity level, thereby circumventing the federal cap.

Recently, policymakers have revisited the SALT deduction and raised the limitation from $10,000 to $40,000 under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This change dramatically alters the cost-benefit analysis of the SALT workarounds. This article examines the impact of the $40,000 limitation compared to the original $10,000 cap, focusing on micro-sized businesses (those with less than $500,000 in gross annual income). We also consider the ethical implications of state-level workarounds and whether a higher SALT cap reduces inequities in the tax system.

SALT limitations and state responses

Under the $10,000 limitation enacted by the TCJA, taxpayers with significant property taxes or state income tax liabilities often saw their deductions curtailed. States such as Connecticut, California, New York and Colorado quickly enacted entity-level tax regimes that allowed PTEs to elect entity-level taxation, thus restoring the deductibility of these state taxes for federal purposes. The IRS approved this approach in Notice 2020-75.

With the limitation now expanded to $40,000, the calculus changes significantly. Many households, including micro-sized business owners, may find their full SALT obligations fall within the higher threshold, making state-level workarounds less critical.

Comparative analysis: $10,000 vs. $40,000 cap

To illustrate the shift, consider the following simplified scenarios. Each involves a taxpayer with $150,000 in pass-through entity income, $7,500 in property tax, and approximately $20,000 in other itemized deductions.

Scenario A: $10,000 SALT  cap: Under the original $10,000 limitation, a taxpayer paying both property tax and state income tax would often exceed the deduction ceiling. For example, a taxpayer with $7,500 in property taxes and $11,250 in state income tax would face a combined $18,750 SALT burden but could deduct only $10,000. Electing the entity-level workaround allowed most or all of the property tax to be deducted, leading to modest but meaningful federal tax savings.

Scenario B: $40,000 SALT cap: With a $40,000 cap, the same taxpayer could deduct their entire $18,750 SALT burden without the need for entity-level taxation. This largely eliminates the benefit of the workaround at moderate income levels. The workaround may still be helpful for higher-income taxpayers in states with high property or income taxes, but the average micro-sized business owner will now see less reason to pursue the added complexity.

Side-by-side comparison tables: $10,000 vs. $40,000 cap

The following tables provide a simplified comparison of tax outcomes for micro-sized business owners under the original $10,000 SALT limitation and the updated $40,000 cap. These examples highlight how the higher cap reduces the value of entity-level workarounds for most taxpayers, including single and married filing jointly taxpayers.

Scenario 1: $150,000 PTE income

Filing status SALT burden Deduction allowed ($10K cap) Deduction allowed ($40K cap) Workaround advantage
MFJ $18750 $10,000 $18,750 Yes (saves $8,750, but unnecessary under $40K)
Single $18750 $10,000 $18,750 Yes (saves $8,750, but unnecessary under $40K)

Scenario 2: $400,000 PTE income

Filing status SALT burden Deduction allowed ($10K cap) Deduction allowed ($40K cap) Workaround advantage
MFJ 25,700 $10,000 $25,700 Yes (saves $15,700 under $10K cap, but unnecessary under $40K)
Single 25,700 $10,000 $25,700 Yes (saves $15,700 under $10K cap, but unnecessary under $40K)

As these tables show, the $10,000 cap created strong incentives to use entity-level SALT workarounds. With a $40,000 cap, the deduction covers most taxpayers’ SALT obligations directly, making the workaround far less relevant except for the highest-income households in the highest-tax states.

Ethical considerations of SALT workarounds

The SALT cap was originally enacted because the SALT deduction disproportionately benefits upper-income households who itemize deductions and live in high-tax states.  SALT workarounds were enacted to combat congressional intent, occupying an ambiguous ethical space.     

On one hand, states were acting to protect their residents from what many high-income earners considered an unfair federal limitation. On the other hand, the workarounds undermined congressional intent and created inequities between taxpayers in different states. Affluent taxpayers with the resources to engage sophisticated advisors were often the greatest beneficiaries.

The expansion of the SALT cap to $40,000 reduces some of the workaround concerns. Many upper-middle-class and micro-business households now have their full SALT obligations covered without special elections. This levels the playing field by reducing the need for complex workarounds that were disproportionately accessible to higher earners and multistate operators. From an ethical standpoint, a higher cap enhances transparency and reduces reliance on legislative loopholes. 

The $10,000 SALT limitation prompted states to devise creative workarounds that helped some but not all taxpayers. For micro-sized businesses, these workarounds were often too complex to be worth the administrative burden. With the cap now raised to $40,000, many small business owners can fully deduct their SALT obligations without relying on these mechanisms. While the workarounds technically remain available, their relevance diminishes under the new limitation.  The higher cap mitigates ethical concerns of the workaround provisions by making the tax system less dependent on strategic state-level maneuvering.

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

Accounting

U.S. Imposes New 50% Tariffs on Canadian Imports Under Rare Legal Provision

Published

on

U.S. Imposes New 50% Tariffs on Canadian Imports Under Rare Legal Provision

WASHINGTON — In a major escalation of cross-border trade friction, U.S. President Donald Trump has signed executive orders imposing new 50% tariffs on a wide selection of Canadian exports, citing discriminatory practices by Ottawa targeting American auto, dairy, and beverage industries.

The new duties, announced Monday, will take effect in 30 days. They target a broad spectrum of consumer and industrial goods—ranging from wine, liquor, and milk products to commercial cement, furniture, clothing, and hockey equipment.

Untested Legal Mechanism

To enact the sweeping measures, the administration invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930—a rarely used legal provision allowing the executive branch to levy additional tariffs of up to 50% on foreign nations deemed to discriminate against U.S. commerce.

White House officials noted that Section 338 addresses trade discrimination rather than national security or economic emergencies. The move comes months after prior global emergency tariffs faced legal challenges in domestic courts, signaling Washington’s pivot toward alternate statutory authorities to maintain import duties.

Senior administration officials briefed reporters that the measure directly responds to Canadian provincial bans on U.S. alcohol, restrictions on American vehicle exports, and import quota disparities affecting U.S. dairy and cheese producers relative to third-party trading partners.

“While the administration continues to secure reciprocal trade agreements globally, Canada retaliated against efforts to protect domestic industry,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated.

USMCA Impact and Carve-Outs

Significantly, the newly ordered 50% duties will apply to designated items even if they otherwise comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

However, the administration confirmed key targeted exemptions:

  • Energy products (including oil and natural gas)
  • Potash and critical minerals
  • Fish and seafood
  • Goods already governed by sector-specific duties (such as existing steel and aluminum tariffs)

Administration representatives emphasized that the tariffs do not stem from recent disputes concerning drifting Canadian wildfire smoke, noting that policy options regarding environmental spillover remain under separate review.

Canadian Response and Market Reaction

Following the White House announcement, the Canadian dollar experienced a sharp decline against the U.S. dollar, falling approximately 0.4% during evening trading.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a statement emphasizing that Canada’s earlier counter-duties had merely matched previous U.S. trade actions. “Canada stands ready to engage intensively to address outstanding issues with the U.S. to the mutual benefit of our citizens,” Carney stated, pointing to detailed proposals Ottawa submitted to modernize the USMCA framework.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford took a firmer stance, urging a “dollar-for-dollar” reciprocal response if the measures go into effect on August 19.

With a 30-day implementation window before the duties officially lock in, industry associations and trade groups on both sides of the border are calling for urgent bilateral negotiations to avert further supply chain disruption across North America.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Continuous Auditing: Transforming Compliance and Real-Time Financial Oversight

Published

on

Transforming Compliance and Real-Time Financial Oversight

The traditional accounting paradigm—defined by periodic monthly closures and post-hoc annual audits—is rapidly giving way to continuous, automated financial oversight. As of July 2026, forward-thinking accounting practices and multinational corporate finance departments are leveraging continuous auditing systems powered by advanced machine learning models. These systems monitor operational transactions in real time, shifting audit methodologies from sample-based post-analysis to absolute, 100% transaction-level verification.

The operational advantages of continuous auditing are transformative. Standard auditing procedures historically relied on statistical sampling, which, despite rigorous methodology, inherently left gaps where anomalies or fraudulent transactions could go undetected for months. Modern continuous auditing platforms integrate directly with enterprise resource planning (ERP) databases, instantly cross-referencing purchase orders, invoices, bank feeds, and tax records. Any deviation from established control parameters or unusual transaction behavior triggers immediate flags for internal audit teams, dramatically reducing detection lag from quarters to seconds.

Beyond fraud prevention, continuous auditing fundamentally alters internal reporting and decision-making. Executive leadership no longer has to wait weeks after the close of a quarter to evaluate precise financial standing; real-time verified ledger data provides an uninterrupted view of operating margins, tax liabilities, and cash flow dynamics. This real-time visibility enables corporate controllers to adjust capital allocation strategies dynamically, mitigating liquidity constraints and capitalizing on emerging commercial opportunities far more efficiently than competitors bound to legacy reporting cycles.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting professionals to acquire new analytical capabilities. The role of the auditor is evolving from manual data reconciliation toward system validation, algorithmic model governance, and strategic risk interpretation. Accounting firms and corporate finance departments must invest in continuous technical education, ensuring that audit staff possess the data engineering skills necessary to design, maintain, and evaluate complex automated compliance systems.

Continue Reading

Trending