Imagine for a moment, you are the CEO or CRO of a growing fintech company when the news about how artificial intelligence can transform the accounting and finance industries first breaks.
The dollar signs start going off in your head, because you’re already perfectly positioned to be at the forefront of this upcoming boom.
You have the team, and you have the infrastructure, to capitalize on incorporating AI into your existing product offerings, which surely will excite the CFOs and controllers you sell to, making hitting your sales numbers automatic.
These controllers are desperate for technology to help their burnt out staff pick up the slack from the never-ending work that keeps piling onto their plates, and these CFOs are desperately trying to get it all done without incurring additional headcount costs, so they can report back to their board a decrease in cash burn.
Just when you think the opportunity can’t get any better, it does! The tech world announces AI agents, an iterative evolution of the original AI, which can quite literally do staff accounting work (and in some cases, one might argue it can even think at the same level of a staff – I kid! sorta).
Your software engineers get to work implementing all of these new technologies and features into your product while you and leadership anxiously await the chance to inform the world of how you’re at the front edge of this time and cost-saving technological breakthrough!
Then, as you lay in bed the night before you’re about to make some major marketing campaign announcements, it hits you… as a fintech SaaS company, you sell seats. Your revenue numbers are tied to selling more seats of users on your application.
This dream very quickly became a nightmare.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place
If you missed it, the circular function resulting in a cell error in this situation (more accounting jokes), is that the technology being sold reduces the need for more people, and thus reduces cost… but in order for the company that is selling this technology to grow and report their exceeded sales benchmarks to the board, they need more purchased seats, which necessitates people to fill those seats!
The impasse is that the very thing which is going to help fintech products become better and more valuable to customers and users is also going to be the thing that reduces the number of customers and users.
Let’s also not forget about the optics.
Most accounting technology companies pride themselves on making life easier for the accountants whose work the technology is assisting with, but how much would these accountants want to buy the technology that could theoretically take their jobs?
You can see how this is a difficult situation, for fintech branding, yes; but also for us accountants to grapple with the idea that there is no winning either. We can either be left behind working inefficiently, or advance ourselves out of a job.
That’s not to say there aren’t the lucky few who master the technology and get on top of it — because every system needs an operator — but why have a team of 10 when you can have a team of five?
To the CFO, this seems like a no brainer … and why wouldn’t the sales teams at fintech companies jump on the chance to appeal to the most critical part of this top level decision maker’s job: saving money.
It seems contradictory, since artificial intelligence is what has created the boom of B2B fintech SaaS companies over the last decade, starting with simple rules-based automations before AI was even a thing.
But as we all know, no opportunity is met without a challenge, and this one has been one brewing underneath all of the opportunities since technology first became the “LIFO the party” (OK, I seriously need to stop with these jokes).
So all doom, no boom?
It’s not all gray skies, as much as it sounds or appears like it may be.
The pivot point is clear and is part of a few other discussions that have been going around for years.
The first is the accounting profession rebrand, which I’ve written about before.
Technology offers us the chance to not just tell the next generation of accountants that their work won’t be as difficult and tedious because AI will help them, but rather that their work will be entirely different.
This may be met sorely by some ears who wish to preserve the traditional ways of working that accounting has been — trust me, I’ll always be a beautiful double entry purest — but we need to be comfortable understanding that beyond the technical theory, what it is that we as accountants do is going to be different.
When sprinklers were invented, gardeners and landscapers didn’t go out of business — they still needed to know where to place the sprinklers, at what interval they needed to turn on, and for how long — but they did need to give up trying to sell their traditional lawn-watering services.
We hate the word “change” in accounting because it sounds like more work, but sometimes change is necessary. Given we are referring to the talent pipeline as a “crisis” inherently means drastic times call for drastic changes.
The second has been the ongoing move to value-based pricing models.
This began when we started questioning if billable hours still made sense, with more work being outsourced and offshored for cheaper rates, and as technology made us more efficient with our work.
It left the room for a while, but the billable hours conversation is back up for discussion, and more importantly for action.
In the same way that fintech SaaS companies are struggling to find a solution to a seat-based pricing model, where AI reduces the number of seats needed; accounting firms are in need of finding a solution to billable hour-based charging, where AI reduces the number of hours needed.
As straightforward as it may sound to move to a “value-based” model, outcomes are not always necessarily the most quantifiable, and ROI has many more factors than the three words that make the acronym up.
Perhaps there’s an actuarial opportunity for roles that help provide clarity to how we place value on these types of activities, but that is a discussion for another day.
Within challenge comes opportunity
We can say that “accountants can do higher-level, more strategic work” all we want, but if accountants don’t view themselves as being more creative, innovative and strategic thinkers, it’ll be a tough service to sell. Plus, if the leadership at companies doesn’t view accountants beyond bookkeeping task rabbits, nor does the mainstream view accountants beyond their traditional number crunching stereotypes, it’ll be nearly impossible to swim against the tide.
What we, as accountants, have on our hands, is a need to show the world that we are capable of much more than what we’ve been pinned as, and most importantly to prove to ourselves that we can not only survive, but thrive in a different environment than SALY’s (OK, that was the last pun, I promise).
But that’s the rebrand hurdle that we’re up against. Not just among ourselves, but the entire business community, and most of society.
While each opportunity presents a new challenge, each challenge presents a new opportunity — so it’s time we start viewing them as such.
Artificial intelligence has indeed led tech-forward firms (including those in this year’s Best Firms for Technology) to be more efficient and productive in both client-facing and administrative tasks, but at the same time professionals have found the technology still struggles with precision and accuracy, which limits its usefulness for complex work.
On the positive end, firms such as the Texas-based Franklin Alliance reported that adopting AI technology has dramatically increased their capacities as bots take on repetitive manual tasks with an ease and a speed far past more conventional automation setups, allowing accountants to focus more on higher value tasks.
“What’s been most impressive about the AI tools we’ve explored is their ability to dramatically reduce the time spent on repetitive, manual tasks—things like document summarization, data extraction, and even early-stage tax prep. In the right context, these tools create real efficiency gains and allow our team to shift focus to higher-value advisory work,” said Benjamin Holloway, co-founder of Texas-based Franklin Alliance.
madedee – stock.adobe.com
For some, like Illinois-based Mowery & Schoenfeld, these efficiencies have been most impressive on the internal administration side, with AI effectively taking care of the non-accounting work that nonetheless keeps many firms afloat, especially where it concerns meetings.
“Truly most impressive and a huge time savings for us has been AI’s ability to record and summarize Team meetings. Circulating notes and reducing administrative burden on such activities has freed up much capacity, both for our admin side and for partners or management who are not able to be at every meeting,” said Chris Madden, director of information technology.
Others, like top 10 firm Grant Thornton, emphasized AI’s benefits in client-facing activities and noted that it has been especially meaningful in its risk advisory services at least partially due to the firm’s recently-launched CompliAI tool, designed specifically for this area.
“The tool uses generative artificial intelligence and was developed using Microsoft technology, including Microsoft Azure OpenAI Service. CompliAI’s ability to quickly analyze vast datasets and identify potential risks has proven invaluable in combining Grant Thornton’s extensive global controls library with generative AI models and features, including AI analysis, ranking and natural language processing capabilities. As a result, our employees can run control design and assessment tasks in minutes, versus days or weeks. This means clients enjoy faster operational insights, which could amount to a new level of efficiency and a path toward transformative growth,” said Mike Kempke, GT’s chief information officer.
Another positive frequently mentioned, such as by top 25 firm Cherry Bekaert, has been the accessibility and ease of use for many AI solutions even for those without strong technical capacities. Assurance partner Jonathan Kraftchick said this means they did not need to wait long before they began seeing results.
“The most impressive aspect of AI has been its ability to add value with minimal ramp-up time. Many of the tools we’ve implemented have a low barrier to entry, allowing users to start experimenting and seeing results almost immediately. Whether it’s drafting content, conducting accounting research, summarizing meetings, normalizing data, or detecting anomalies, AI has consistently helped accelerate tasks and enable our teams to focus on higher-risk or higher-value areas,” he said.
Several firms, such as California-based Navolio & Tallman, also mentioned improvements to broad strategy and ideation, saying it’s been good for enhancing creativity and accelerating the early stages of their work.
“We’ve still seen value in AI as a jumping off point for ideas and strategy. It’s been helpful for brainstorming, drafting early versions of client communications, and supporting high-level planning conversations,” said IT partner Stephanie Ringrose.
Inconsistencies, inaccuracies, insufficiency, and insecurity
At the same time, firms over and over again said that while the strength of AI comes in handling simple jobs, it often lacks the precision and consistent accuracy needed for higher value accounting work. While it can certainly generate outputs at an industrial scale, trusting that those outputs are correct is another story for firms like Community CPA and Associates.
“AI is incredibly useful for certain types of tasks, such as summarization, data extraction, answering simple questions, drafting communications or documentation, brainstorming ideas, or serving as a sounding board. However, we have observed that most AI tools we’ve tried have difficulty with complex tasks that require lots of context, precision, or domain-specific knowledge. Oftentimes in these cases, AI tools will generate responses that are overly confident or wrong and are missing key information due to not being integrated with other systems or software we have,” said CEO Ying Sa.
Some, like top 25 firm Armanino, noted that these challenges mean that humans need to devote considerable time to ensuring the quality of AI outputs and intervening when the programs go off track.
“The primary disappointment stems from the occasional inaccuracies or biases inherent in AI-generated outputs, commonly referred to as ‘hallucinations,’ necessitating continuous human oversight to ensure reliability. Addressing these inconsistencies remains an ongoing challenge,” said Jim Nagata, senior director of cybersecurity and IT operations.
Top 25 firm Eisner Amper’s chief technology officer Sanjay Desai noted that these issues with accuracy and consistency can be found across AI solutions, though noted that the technology is still quite new and so many things are still in the process of being refined.
“The lows come from the gap between what’s possible and what works reliably in practice. We still need strong guardrails to define valid inputs and outputs, especially in sensitive use cases. Technologies like retrieval augmented generation (RAG) haven’t yet delivered the accuracy or consistency we need when working with proprietary or domain-specific data. Even in mature areas like audio-to-text transcription, we see issues—particularly with accurately identifying speakers in multi-person meetings, which affects the quality of recaps and follow-up actions. In short, while LLMs have come a long way, making them enterprise-ready still requires ongoing human oversight, thoughtful implementation, and continuous refinement,” said Desai.
Another issue reported by several firms was what firms like Navolio & Tallman saw as ongoing security risks from AI solutions that limits their ability to apply the technology to more sensitive use cases.
“The overall attention to security and privacy is still more limited than our industry requires, vendors have not yet aligned their pricing models with the impact their tools make to the business, and vendors still oversell their AI capabilities,” she said.
Top 25 firm Citrin Cooperman also noted–among other things–that the security of these solutions could stand to improve.
“The overall attention to security and privacy is still more limited than our industry requires, vendors have not yet aligned their pricing models with the impact their tools make to the business, and vendors still oversell their AI capabilities,” said chief information officer Kimberly Paul.
Another issue with AI that firms have reported is that solutions today don’t seem to integrate especially well with other programs, which limits the ability of these solutions to work across multiple systems in a single coherent workflow–under such conditions, AI solutions can wind up being siloed from the very areas it is needed the most.
“We believe one of the biggest gaps in current AI solutions is the inability to integrate into other AI solutions to work collectively across one process or workflow. There are many cases where one AI solution is very good at a specific task, while another is very good at another process or task, but the gap is the ability to integrate those solutions together to solve for an entirety of a process or a workflow,” said Brent McDaniel, chief digital officer for top 25 firm Aprio.
There is also the matter of data integration, which is needed for AI systems to gain a more holistic understanding of a firm’s needs. Without such integrations, AI becomes more limited in its ability to develop insights and provide actionable guidance, according to Tom Hasard, IT shareholder for New Jersey-based Wilken Gutenplan.
“We wish AI tools could fully synthesize all of our internal data and unique expertise—beyond the scope of general internet search—and provide detailed, context-specific answers for our team. In the near term, we envision an internal system that taps into our accumulated knowledge to assist staff in resolving complex client problems more quickly. Over time, this capability could be extended to give clients direct, on-demand access to our specialized insights, effectively scaling our expertise and delivering value in a more immediate and personalized way,” he said.
Beyond just data, lack of integration also limits the ability for AI to address complex problems due to lack of cross-disciplinary expertise, according to Kempke from Grant Thornton.
“Current AI solutions lack the deep cross-disciplinary expertise to be able to solve complex issues. AI today is optimized for specific fields and tasks but when it comes to solving problems that span multiple disciplines such as Tax, Legal and Finance, the current solutions are not yet capable of providing meaningful advice and guidance. Grant Thornton is already working with various AI partners on this issue and targets to be a very early adopter of the next iteration of AI that addresses this,” he said.
The AI wishlist
Many firms hoped that the next generation of AI solutions would address these sorts of problems in a way that will allow them to become true assistants capable of taking on complex tasks that require extensive judgment.
“We have found that AI currently lacks in the ability to replicate human creativity and complex decision-making. While AI excels at data analysis and task automation, it struggles with tasks requiring creativity and nuanced judgment. If AI could offer more sophisticated support in areas such as accounting and audit services, its value and impact in our daily lives would be significantly enhanced,” said Jim Meade, CEO of top 50 firm LBMC.
Desai, from Eisner Amper, also pointed out that AI isn’t very good at handling bad data, which is a problem considering that AIs run on data. This means that using AI effectively today still requires a great deal of data processing and sanitation to make information useful. If humans did not need to do so much manual cleanup to get data AI-ready, it would help make the technology even more efficient.
“One of the biggest gaps in AI today is its limited ability to handle bad data. Since data is the foundation of any AI strategy, it’s a challenge that most organizations still face— dealing with messy, inconsistent, or unstructured data. We wish AI could do more to identify, fix, and improve data quality automatically, instead of relying so much on manual cleanup,” said Desai.
Finally, Avani Desai, CEO of top 50 firm Schellman, said that AI needs to not only be safer, it needs to be visibly so, as trust and confidence in the technology is often key to adoption.
“I wish that AI could de-risk itself so that clients would be more open to using it and build client trust. If AI could more clearly demonstrate safety and responsible use, adoption would be much easier. Once people understand it’s here to help—and learn to use it responsibly—the fear will fade,” she said.
Representative Nicole Malliotakis said increasing the state and local tax deduction cap to $30,000 from $10,000 would reduce the tax burden of the vast majority of people in her district, indicating support for a proposal that is dividing Republicans.
“Every member needs to advocate for the particular needs of their district. Tripling the deduction to $30,000 will provide much-needed relief for the middle-class and cover 98% of the families in my district,” Malliotakis, a Republican representing Staten Island, New York and a member of the House tax committee, said in a statement to Bloomberg News on Friday.
Malliotakis’ nod of approval for a $30,000 SALT deduction cap comes as Republicans are fighting among themselves about how high to increase a tax break that has the potential to scuttle President Donald Trump’s entire tax package.
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Thursday said the $30,000 write-off limit is one of several options being discussed. That figure was rejected by several other New York Republicans, including Elise Stefanik, Nick LaLota, Mike Lawler and Andrew Garbarino. California’s Young Kim also rebuffed the idea.
Malliotakis’ district has less expensive property values and lower incomes than some of the other lawmakers pushing for a SALT expansion, making it politically viable for her to accept a lower cap than some of her colleagues.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested on Friday that Trump would not weigh in on an appropriate level for a SALT cap, leaving it to lawmakers to resolve.
“There’s a lot of disagreement on Capitol Hill right now about the SALT tax proposal, and we will let them work it out,” she told reporters.
House Republicans’ narrow majority means that Johnson needs to win the support of nearly all his members to pass Trump’s tax-and-spending package.
Several of the SALT advocates have said that they are willing to block the bill unless there is a sufficient increase to the deduction. However, most members have not publicly stated how high the deduction must be to win their support.
The debate over SALT has proved to be a particularly thorny fight because it is a political priority for a small but vocal group of Republicans representing swing districts critical to the party maintaining a majority in the 2026 midterm elections.
Expanding the write-off is an expensive proposition, and Republicans have little fiscal wiggle room as they are sparring over ways — including cuts to Medicaid and levy hikes on millionaires — to offset the cost of the tax-cut package.
The House Ways and Means Committee is slated to consider the tax portion of the bill on Tuesday, including SALT changes.
House Republicans are considering increasing taxes on university endowments, a significant threat to some of the nation’s wealthiest schools as President Donald Trump seeks to tighten control over American higher education.
The measure is in a draft of the tax package Republicans are weighing, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to share details on the effort. The proposal would create a tiered system of taxation so that wealthy colleges and universities pay more as the size of their endowment grows, the people said.
Republicans are considering boosting the 1.4% endowment tax currently on the books to rates as high as 14% to 21%, a person familiar with the matter said.
The bill is not finalized, however, the people cautioned, and the draft could change as Republicans negotiate its terms, a complex task as the party looks to renew and expand tax breaks and find ways to pay for them with only a narrow House majority.
Targeting university endowments would be a major escalation of Trump’s fight with elite colleges and universities, which has seen the administration demand changes to school policies that reflect his priorities.
The current tax on private-school endowments ensnares many of the richest universities, like Harvard University and Yale University, as well as smaller elite institutions such as Amherst College and Williams College. Some of the wealthiest private colleges in the country boast endowments of at least $500,000 per student.
Harvard, in particular, with a $53.2 billion endowment, has been locked in a high-stakes fight with the Trump administration over its demands for changes at the school. Harvard has sued several U.S. agencies and top officials for freezing billions of dollars in federal funding. Trump has also threatened the school’s tax-exempt status, though experts say revoking that designation would be a lengthy process involving the Internal Revenue Service and the courts.
A new poll by AP-NORC out Friday shows a majority of Americans disagree with Trump’s demands that higher-education institutions make curriculum and cultural changes or face the loss of federal funding for scientific and medical research or have their tax-exempt status threatened.
The poll found that 62% of Americans support maintaining federal research funding, 72% believe “liberals, students and professors can speak freely to at least some extent,” and 84% are concerned at some level about the cost of tuition, an issue Trump has not focused on.
Trump’s 2017 tax package, which Republicans are moving to renew, implemented an endowment levy of 1.4% on net investment income, similar to one that private foundations pay. That levy generated more than $380 million from 56 colleges or universities in 2023 — though it affected just a small fraction of the 1,700 private, nonprofit US schools.
House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington floated a long list of possible budget cuts in January that included raising $10 billion over 10 years by raising the endowment tax to 14%.
Discussions over the Republican tax package are reaching a critical stage. Trump is meeting Friday with the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee — the chamber’s tax-writing panel, according to people familiar.
Trump and Representative Jason Smith will discuss the draft proposal. The committee is expected to release parts of the bill later this afternoon and the rest of the draft on Sunday night or Monday, the people said.
One of the people familiar cast the effort as a bid by Republicans to ensure that universities spend their endowments on their students and not on other initiatives disfavored by conservatives, such as diversity, equity and inclusion efforts or on challenging the Trump administration’s policies.