Connect with us

Accounting

FASB proposes to improve interim reporting

Published

on

The Financial Accounting Standards Board issued a proposed accounting standards update Wednesday that aims to improve the navigability of the disclosures that need to be provided for interim reporting periods and clarify both when that guidance is applicable and which disclosures are required in interim reporting periods. 

The proposed ASU is described as “narrow scope improvements” and it’s not supposed to change the fundamental nature of interim reporting or expand or reduce the current interim disclosure requirements. Instead, the proposed ASU would offer greater clarity about the current interim reporting requirements.

The amendments in the proposed ASU would clarify that the guidance in Topic 270, the part of the FASB Accounting Standards Codification on interim reporting, applies to all entities that provide interim financial statements and notes in accordance with GAAP. The amendments would also create a comprehensive list in Topic 270 of interim disclosures that are required in interim financial statements and notes in accordance with GAAP.

The proposed amendments incorporate a disclosure principle, modeled after a previous SEC principle, that would require entities to disclose events and changes that occur after the end of the most recent fiscal year that have a material impact on the entity. The proposed ASU would also improve the guidance about information included in and the format of interim financial statements.

“One of the benefits of the [Codification] was it brought all this disparate accounting guidance into one location, and tried to make it much easier, so that if you were working on a topic, you could find it,” said FASB chair Richard Jones during a session at Financial Executives International’s Current Financial Reporting Insights Conference on Tuesday. “But then we had this chapter on interim reporting. And to be fair, when you looked at it, it probably didn’t do a very good job of explaining when someone prepares interim financial statements, what disclosures are required on an interim basis. And so what we did was we spent a lot of time going through all of our old board memos, through the Codification, the predecessor to the Codification. And what we’ve attempted to do is to bring together into one place required interim disclosures, as well as adding in the disclosure principle that many of you are familiar with from prior SEC guidance related to material changes from the information in the annual report, and when you have to supplement that on an interim basis. And that’s our objective. We had some board members who wanted to greatly expand interim reporting. We had other board members who said, ‘Let’s delete all the requirements and just go with the principle.’ But ultimately, what we decided was we needed to clarify exactly what our standards did and didn’t require, and that’s what we’re focused on.”

jones-richard-fasb-fei-cfri-2024.jpg

FASB chair Richard Jones speaking at FEI CFRI virtual conference

FASB is asking for comments on the proposed ASU by March 31, 2025. Jones encouraged members of the audience of the virtual FEI CFRI conference who do quarterly reporting at least three times a year to take a look at the proposed ASU. “We think we’re in a pretty good spot, but to the extent that you think we’ve included something or excluded something, that it’s different from what was intended when the standards were issued, we’d be very interested,” he said,

Jones said FASB expects to issue one additional final standard, six exposure drafts and three invitations to comments before the end of the year, and this would be one of those exposure drafts. 

During a press conference following the session, Accounting Today asked if FASB had been receiving much feedback yet on some of its recent standards on crypto assets and income tax reporting.

“I would say on the crypto standard, we haven’t really heard a lot,” said Jones. “Moving into fair value was pretty well received by all of our stakeholder groups. On income taxes, we’ve done a lot of outreach, and what we were talking about was expansion of disclosures currently required. I think those were pretty well understood. It’s possible we’ll get more questions before adoption next year, but as of now, we’re not really getting a huge volume of inquiries.”

Accounting Today also asked about FASB’s plans to offer more guidance on key performance indicators. Later this week, FASB plans to send out an invitation comment on financial key performance indicators, Jones said during the session, and it will ask a series of questions about whether there’s a role for FASB to play in standardizing financial KPIs such as EBITDA, funds from operation, free cash flow or an adjusted earnings measure. Accounting Today asked Jones whether this guidance might address some of the concerns the Securities and Exchange Commission has expressed about the use of non-GAAP measures.

“Whether they’re concerned about them and which ones they are and aren’t, I’ll leave to them,” said Jones. “We have heard from some stakeholders that we should be considering whether there are certain financial KPIs that should be brought into the financial statements. Now, what does that mean? For some that might mean, are there some financial KPIs that could benefit with a standardized definition, say a single definition of EBITDA, and what goes into that? For others, it may simply mean, what industries does it make sense to provide a KPI in the financial statements? Alternatively, some look at it and say, ‘Well, maybe there are KPIs that the company’s already using. Is there a way under a management type approach to bring them into the financial statements, or should potentially, they not be included in the financials?’ So it’s really us getting input on all those issues. Depending on what we hear from that ITC, we’ll bring that back to our board, and our board will be able to make decisions on [whether] there’s a need for standard-setting in this area.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

on

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Modernizing Internal Controls: Machine Learning and Continuous Monitoring in Auditing

Published

on

Internal audit departments and corporate risk managers are modernizing internal control frameworks by shifting from periodic sampling techniques to continuous monitoring and machine learning analytics. As operational data volumes increase across enterprise organizations, automated control testing ensures financial integrity, prevents corporate fraud, and streamlines annual audit engagements.

The Limitation of Periodic Audit Sampling
Historically, internal and external auditors evaluated internal controls by reviewing random samples of financial transactions—often analyzing less than five percent of total ledger entries. In complex enterprise environments, periodic sampling methods carry inherent risks of overlooking localized financial misstatements, unauthorized disbursements, or operational control breakdowns.

In 2026, progressive internal audit functions are utilizing automated continuous monitoring platforms that evaluate one hundred percent of financial transactions in real time. Continuous control auditing systems continuously monitor general ledger entries, procurement approvals, and expense reimbursements across all operating subsidiaries.

AI-Powered Fraud Detection and Anomaly Identification
Machine learning models trained on historical corporate financial data excel at identifying subtle transactional anomalies that indicate potential fraud or operational error. Automated systems instantly flag duplicate invoice payments, unapproved vendor creation, unusual journal entry timing, and unauthorized override of authority thresholds.

When an anomaly is detected, the automated auditing platform generates an instant risk alert, allowing internal audit teams to investigate root causes immediately. Early detection prevents minor operational errors from escalating into material weaknesses in financial reporting.

Streamlining External Audit Preparation
Continuous internal control monitoring delivers significant benefits during annual external financial audits. External audit firms can review continuous audit logs and automated control testing documentation, reducing the time required for manual field testing.

This integrated approach lowers overall audit compliance fees, reduces administrative burdens on corporate accounting staff, and provides senior management and audit committees with real-time visibility into the organization’s overall risk profile.

Core Implementation Guidelines
1. Transition to 100% Data Testing: Replace legacy sampling methods with automated continuous audit monitoring systems.
2. Deploy Anomaly Detection Algorithms: Implement machine learning models to identify unauthorized transactions and operational control overrides.
3. Align Internal and External Audit Workflows: Coordinate continuous control testing protocols with external auditors to optimize annual compliance cycles.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Tax Compliance and Global Regulatory Harmonization in 2026

Published

on

Corporate tax accounting departments are navigating an era of unprecedented regulatory complexity as global tax harmonization frameworks take full effect alongside real-time digital tax reporting mandates. Tax directors and accounting teams are adopting cloud-based tax compliance automation tools to manage multi-jurisdictional tax liabilities and satisfy stringent reporting rules across international jurisdictions.

Implementation of Global Minimum Tax Provisions
The implementation of international tax reform agreements—notably the Pillar Two global minimum tax framework—has reshaped multinational corporate tax planning. Multinational enterprises with consolidated revenues exceeding established thresholds must ensure an effective tax rate of at least 15% across every jurisdiction in which they operate.

Accounting teams are implementing specialized tax calculation modules integrated directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms. These automated tools calculate effective tax rates per country, identify top-up tax liabilities, and generate standardized compliance documentation required by national tax authorities.

Real-Time Digital Invoicing and E-Reporting Mandates
Tax authorities across Europe, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific have enacted mandatory electronic invoicing (e-invoicing) and continuous transaction controls (CTC). Under these systems, corporate transaction data must be submitted electronically to government portals in real time at the point of sale or invoice issuance.

This shift toward continuous digital tax reporting eliminates traditional annual tax audits in favor of ongoing automated compliance monitoring. Accounting departments are upgrading invoicing software to ensure seamless XML data formatting, digital signature authentication, and real-time validation against tax authority databases.

Automation and Data Analytics in Corporate Tax Strategy
To keep pace with dynamic tax legislation, tax departments are transitioning from reactive compliance teams to proactive strategic advisors. Machine learning algorithms analyze corporate transactional data to identify tax credits, research and development (R&D) incentives, and cross-border transfer pricing adjustments.

By automating routine tax return filings and calculations, corporate tax directors can focus on long-term capital structuring, evaluating the tax implications of corporate mergers, and optimizing international supply chain networks.

Strategic Priorities for Tax Executives
1. ERP System Upgrades: Ensure enterprise software is capable of generating real-time, granular tax data required for global minimum tax compliance.
2. E-Invoicing Integration: Implement scalable e-invoicing platforms to satisfy regional continuous transaction control regulations.
3. Strategic Tax Analytics: Utilize predictive tax modeling tools to evaluate structural changes in corporate operations and cross-border trade.

Continue Reading

Trending