Connect with us

Accounting

Fifth Circuit rules cell phone tax unconstitutional

Published

on

In a case that will likely end up in the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit has held that the “universal service” tax that appears on cell phone bills violates Article 1, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.

Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress delegated its taxing power to the Federal Communications Commission, which then subdelegated the taxing power to a private corporation. The private corporation then relied on for-profit telecommunications companies to determine how much taxpayers would be forced to pay for the “universal service” tax. 

“This is the biggest news in the communications tax world in 20 years,” according to Toby Bargar, senior communications tax specialist at Avalara.  

“The Federal Universal Service Fund is administered as a regulatory assessment on communications business,” he said. “It funds FCC programs like the high-cost program to put broadband in rural areas. It goes back to the 1930s New Deal utility programs to ensure people have electricity. It provides schools, libraries, and other entities with free broadband.”

For years, the USF has been subsidized by assessments, he indicated, noting that it is run through the FCC and administered by a quasi-private agency called Universal Service Administration Company. 

“USAC sets the annual budget, and telco companies have to disclose revenue made during a specific period,” he explained. “Many state agencies handle regulatory issues this way. So, the FCC collects the Universal Service Fund from telecommunications providers, who then pass the cost on to their customers.”

“The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that this assessment is legally a tax, which is significant and controversial,” he said, “It would usually be categorized as a regulatory assessment and surcharged to consumers. The Fifth Circuit determined that USF isn’t a fee … – it’s a tax.”

The Fifth Circuit depicts this situation as the FCC delegating a tax assessment to a private agency, according to Bargar: “Congress delegates the power of taxation, first to the FCC and then to a private administration company. Per the Fifth Circuit, this volates congressional authority to levy tax, similar to the situation in Chevron.”

The case will most likely be granted certiorari to the Supreme Court, according to Bargar: “There’s a significant dissent to the Fifth Circuit decision. And it’s in the same vein of extrapolation to the Chevron case reversal, and interpretation in how far a government agency can go in delegating the collection of tax.”

p19saj05v8dr1verf811gi5q3df.jpg

The ultimate ramifications are significant, he indicated. “This case is similar to how a lot of federal programs are managed — a company reports revenues, figures out its budget, and determines what the amount of contribution will be. If USF is determined to be a tax, this has a huge ripple effect. The implications for hosting a large volume of agency-run programs are limitless.”

“If SCOTUS wants to punt this, the easy punt is to look at the issue of whether this is a tax or not,” he said. “Is a regulatory assessment a tax?  Three other circuit courts have ruled the assessment is constitutional, so that makes this case ripe for certiorari to the Supreme Court.” 

This case has been remanded back to the FCC for further action by the FCC, he noted. “They’ll most certainly file an appeal.”

In a potentially larger ripple effect, this case could challenge definitions used in the regulatory state — a host of various federally run programs by a variety of agencies operate on a similar financial basis as USF. 

“Most legal scholars look at this as a question of whether a regulatory assessment is a de facto tax,” according to Bargar. “USF is an expensive line item, and there’s a lot of money involved — about $6 billion per  year. There has traditionally been broad partisan support for the USF program to exist. Telco carriers receive a significant amount of money from these programs.”

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