Connect with us

Accounting

Economists call for trashing the QBI deduction

Published

on

A sizable tax deduction for the qualified business income of pass-through entities faces potential expiration next year. A panel of university economists and one of the most influential think tanks in Washington said lawmakers should either make big changes or let it go away.

Five economists were asked last month at a Brookings Institution event about which action they hope the next Congress and White House will take on the many parts of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that will sunset at the end of next year. Four of the economists called for the elimination of the so-called 199A deduction for pass-through income. The fifth spoke more generally, advocating for “rescinding some of the tax-rate cuts in the upper part of the income distribution,” which is a common criticism of the impact of the pass-through deduction.

Policy experts, financial advisors, tax professionals and their clients may know the deduction better as “the small business pass-through giveaway,” as the moderator, David Wessel, a Brookings senior fellow in economic studies who is the director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy, referred to it on the panel.

“‘Small business’ with, like, quotes,” Eric Zwick, a professor of economics and finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, said to laughter from the audience. “We should be very clear these [are] like, closely held, potentially quite large businesses with, like, very, very rich owners, many of them. So I think we should be very careful about using that word ‘small’ in a value-sensitive way.”

READ MORE: The QBI deduction’s impact is as murky as its rules, report finds

The others advocating for getting rid of the deduction of up to 20% of the qualifying pass-through income included William Gale, co-founder and co-director of the Brookings and Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center; Kimberly Clausing, the chair of tax law and policy at the UCLA School of Law; and Naomi Feldman, an associate professor of economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Department of Economics, who called the 199A break a policy “that was really put in to placate the small business lobby” that “was really done for political purposes.” The speakers pointed out the high cost of extending the expiring provisions of the law — which could hike the federal budget deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade.

“I think the main thing is we’ve got these huge budget deficits, as far as the eye can see,” said the fifth economist on the panel, Williams College Chair of Economics Jon Bakija. “We need to do some things that are going to restore enough revenue to pay for the government. And I think rescinding some of the tax rate cuts in the upper part of the income distribution is probably worthwhile for that purpose.”

With this year’s election looming in the background as the determining factor on what will happen to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on its deadline date at the end of 2025, the economists acknowledged that the voters and, ultimately, the elected officials would get the final say. While liberal and left-leaning think tanks have slammed the 199A deduction as too heavily beneficial to the wealthy at a large price tag estimated to be as much as $608 billion on its own through 2033, right-leaning and conservative groups argue that the policy boosts small businesses and provides parity for the rates paid by pass-through entities as compared to corporations.

Limits on the deduction to, say, business owners with less than $500,000 in total income “would result in a tax increase on one of the major sources of jobs in our nation, directly hurting workers and the economy,” according to a report earlier this year by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The business advocacy organization has called for legislation making the deduction permanent.

READ MORE: QBI tax break — should it stay or should it go?

However, the complicated existing guidelines relating to the types of businesses that can get the deduction and the levels of qualifying income that make them ineligible has contributed to the fact that there are many entrepreneurs who could have claimed the deduction haven’t applied for it, according to a February report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The available research indicates that “the deduction may have stimulated no more than a modest rise in investment” during its first two years in effect in 2018 and 2019, the report said.

“It is unclear whether the deduction, combined with the temporary individual income tax cuts under the 2017 tax law, has boosted demand for labor in the noncorporate sector,” it said. “The deduction’s complexity increases the cost of compliance for taxpayers who might benefit from it, although it is not clear to what extent. There is also uncertainty about which businesses qualify for the deduction. Some lower-income taxpayers may not claim it because of the complexity and compliance cost. Many upper-income pass-through business owners may claim the deduction, but only with the assistance of tax professionals.”

Amid that murky picture of the impact of the policy, the economists on the panel shared some suggestions for potential adjustments to the deduction.

“You could change the deduction, I guess, if you wanted to keep it and make it cost less,” Zwick said. “You could make it a smaller deduction. But there are lots of phaseouts and phase-ins of some of the rules. The wage and capital requirements there, some of those could be adjusted to basically exclude more firms. I think there are a lot of firms that are on the barrier between the specified service, skilled types that probably shouldn’t get it, versus like other types of firms that, for some reason, like, we think should get it. Those could be tweaked to, like, basically shrink the number of firms that benefit from the preferential rate.”

A shift in focus of the tax breaks for pass-through income could further alter the impact of the deduction, Gale said on the panel.

“The general approach would be not to cut the rate — which is what the deduction does — but to switch it to an investment incentive,” Gale said. “Making a rate cut just is a nonstarter from an efficiency perspective, so making it an investment incentive instead would help some.”

READ MORE: 26 tips on expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions to review before 2026

Regardless, the choice in this year’s presidential election between former President Donald Trump, a Republican who has indicated he would extend the 2017 tax bill he signed into law, and Vice President Kamala Harris — a Democrat who has called for continuing the provisions only for those with incomes below $400,000 — will exert more influence than any economist. Down-ballot races in Congress add another layer of uncertainty about the deduction.

“You notice, I asked them what they thought should be done,” the moderator, Wessel, said. “I didn’t ask them to predict what will happen, because if I wanted to predict what happened, I wouldn’t get five economists on a stage.”

The economists praised some aspects of the law, such as limits to the deduction for mortgage interest payments and a higher standard deduction that has led to less itemization across the board. In general, lawmakers ought to “forget 199A and all the bad stuff” so that they can “get all that revenue back” and “start doing the nice parts of the reform again,” Clausing said.

“I’m not sure we can afford the rate cuts, regardless of any silly pledge about $400K or not,” she said. “It’s not clear Americans will even notice their taxes going up. The vast majority of them — they didn’t notice when they went down.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

Accounting firms seeing increased profits

Published

on

Accounting firms are reporting bigger profits and more clients, according to a new report.

The report, released Monday by Xero, found that nearly three-quarters (73%) of firms reported increased profits over the past year and 56% added new clients thanks to operational efficiency and expanded service offerings.

Some 85% of firms now offer client advisory services, a big spike from 41% in 2023, indicating a strategic shift toward delivering forward-looking financial guidance that clients increasingly expect.

AI adoption is also reshaping the profession, with 80% of firms confident it will positively affect their practice. Currently, the most common use cases for AI include: delivering faster and more responsive client services (33%), enhancing accuracy by reducing bookkeeping and accounting errors (33%), and streamlining workflows through the automation of routine tasks (32%).

“The widespread adoption of AI has been a turning point for the accounting profession, giving accountants an opportunity to scale their impact and take on a more strategic advisory role,” said Ben Richmond, managing director, North America, at Xero, in a statement. “The real value lies not just in working more efficiently, but working smarter, freeing up time to elevate the human element of the profession and in turn, strengthen client relationships.”

Some of the main challenges faced by firms include economic uncertainty (38%), mastering AI (36%) and rising client expectations for strategic advice (35%). 

While 85% of firms have embraced cloud platforms, a sizable number still lag behind, missing out on benefits such as easier data access from anywhere (40%) and enhanced security (36%).

Continue Reading

Accounting

Private equity is investing in accounting: What does that mean for the future of the business?

Published

on

Private equity firms have bought five of the top 26 accounting firms in the past three years as they mount a concerted strategy to reshape the industry. 

The trend should not come as a surprise. It’s one we’ve seen play out in several industries from health care to insurance, where a combination of low-risk, recurring revenue, scalability and an aging population of owners create a target-rich environment. For small to midsized accounting firms, the trend is exacerbated by a technological revolution that’s truly transforming the way accounting work is done, and a growing talent crisis that is threatening tried-and-true business models.

How will this type of consolidation affect the accounting business, and what do firms and their clients need to be on the lookout for as the marketplace evolves?

Assessing the opportunity… and the risk

First and foremost, accounting firm owners need to be aware of just how desirable they are right now. While there has been some buzz in the industry about the growing presence of private equity firms, most of the activity to date has focused on larger, privately held firms. In fact, when we recently asked tax professionals about their exposure to private equity funding in our 2025 State of Tax Professionals Report, we found that just 5% of firms have actually inked a deal and only 11% said they are planning to look, or are currently looking, for a deal with a private equity firm. Another 8% said they are open to discussion. On the one hand, that’s almost a quarter of firms feeling open to private equity investments in some way. But the lion’s share of respondents —  87% — said they were not interested.

Recent private equity deal volume suggests that the holdouts might change their minds when they have a real offer on the table. According to S&P Global, private equity and venture capital-backed deal value in the accounting, auditing and taxation services sector reached more than $6.3 billion in 2024, the highest level since 2015, and the trend shows no signs of slowing. Firm owners would be wise to start watching this trend to see how it might affect their businesses — whether they are interested in selling or not.

Focus on tech and efficiencies of scale

The reason this trend is so important to everyone in the industry right now is that the private equity firms entering this space are not trying to become accountants. They are looking for profitable exits. And they will do that by seizing on a critical inflection point in the industry that’s making it possible to scale accounting firms more rapidly than ever before by leveraging technology to deliver a much wider range of services at a much lower cost. So, whether your firm is interested in partnering with private equity or dead set on going it alone, the hyperscaling that’s happening throughout the industry will affect you one way or another.

Private equity thrives in fragmented businesses where the ability to roll up companies with complementary skill sets and specialized services creates an outsized growth opportunity. Andrew Dodson, managing partner at Parthenon Capital, recently commented after his firm took a stake in the tax and advisory firm Cherry Bekaert, “We think that for firms to thrive, they need to make investments in people and technology, and, obviously, regulatory adherence, to really differentiate themselves in the market. And that’s going to require scale and capital to do it. That’s what gets us excited.”

Over time, this could reshape the industry’s market dynamics by creating the accounting firm equivalent of the Traveling Wilburys — supergroups capable of delivering a wide range of specialized services that smaller, more narrowly focused firms could never previously deliver. It could also put downward pressure on pricing as these larger, platform-style firms start finding economies of scale to deliver services more cost-effectively.

The technology factor

The great equalizer in all of this is technology. Consistently, when I speak to tax professionals actively working in the market today, their top priorities are increased efficiency, growth and talent. Firms recognize they need to streamline workflows and processes through more effective use of technology, and they are investing heavily in AI, automation and data analytics capabilities to do that. Private equity firms, of course, are also investing in tech as they assemble their tax and accounting dream teams, in many cases raising the bar for the industry.

The question is: Can independent firms leverage technology fast enough to keep up with their deep-pocketed competition?

Many firms believe they can, with some even going so far as to publicly declare their independence.  Regardless of the path small to midsized firms take to get there, technology-enabled growth is going to play a key role in the future of the industry. Market dynamics that have been unfolding for the last decade have been accelerated with the introduction of serious investors, and everyone in the industry — large and small — is going to need to up their games to stay competitive.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Trump tax bill would help the richest, hurt the poorest, CBO says

Published

on

The House-passed version of President Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending bill would deliver a financial blow to the poorest Americans but be a boon for higher-income households, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.

The bottom 10% of households would lose an average of about $1,600 in resources per year, amounting to a 3.9% cut in their income, according to the analysis released Thursday. Those decreases are largely attributable to cuts in the Medicaid health insurance program and food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Households in the highest 10% of incomes would see an average $12,000 boost in resources, amounting to a 2.3% increase in their incomes. Those increases are mainly attributable to reductions in taxes owed, according to the report from the nonpartisan CBO.

Households in the middle of the income distribution would see an increase in resources of $500 to $1,000, or between 0.5% and 0.8% of their income. 

The projections are based on the version of the tax legislation that House Republicans passed last month, which includes much of Trump’s economic agenda. The bill would extend tax cuts passed under Trump in 2017 otherwise due to expire at the end of the year and create several new tax breaks. It also imposes new changes to the Medicaid and SNAP programs in an effort to cut spending.

Overall, the legislation would add $2.4 trillion to US deficits over the next 10 years, not accounting for dynamic effects, the CBO previously forecast.

The Senate is considering changes to the legislation including efforts by some Republican senators to scale back cuts to Medicaid.

The projected loss of safety-net resources for low-income families come against the backdrop of higher tariffs, which economists have warned would also disproportionately impact lower-income families. While recent inflation data has shown limited impact from the import duties so far, low-income families tend to spend a larger portion of their income on necessities, such as food, so price increases hit them harder.

The House-passed bill requires that able-bodied individuals without dependents document at least 80 hours of “community engagement” a month, including working a job or participating in an educational program to qualify for Medicaid. It also includes increased costs for health care for enrollees, among other provisions.

More older adults also would have to prove they are working to continue to receive SNAP benefits, also known as food stamps. The legislation helps pay for tax cuts by raising the age for which able bodied adults must work to receive benefits to 64, up from 54. Under the current law, some parents with dependent children under age 18 are exempt from work requirements, but the bill lowers the age for the exemption for dependent children to 7 years old. 

The legislation also shifts a portion of the cost for federal food aid onto state governments.

CBO previously estimated that the expanded work requirements on SNAP would reduce participation in the program by roughly 3.2 million people, and more could lose or face a reduction in benefits due to other changes to the program. A separate analysis from the organization found that 7.8 million people would lose health insurance because of the changes to Medicaid.

Continue Reading

Trending