Connect with us

Accounting

How ETFs circumvent IRS wash-sale rules

Published

2 years ago

on

Institutional investors are harvesting ETF losses for tax purposes, then placing their assets in highly correlated funds — regardless of so-called wash-sale restrictions, a new study found.

In theory, IRS guidelines prohibit investors from buying “substantially identical” securities 30 days before or after selling them. 

In practice, fund managers, pensions, insurance firms, endowments and other institutional investors “engage in substantial swapping” of ETFs with holdings that are 99% or more the same thing to the tune of $417 billion in assets since 2001 and $106 billion in 2022 in transactions that “seem to lack economic substance beyond harvesting capital losses,” according to a working academic paper released this summer and revised last month by four professors of business and management. The findings, which echo those of another working paper from earlier this year, shed more light on how ETFs help financial advisors and their clients offset the taxes on capital gains by booking losses in their portfolios.

“While the economic intent of the wash sale rule is straightforward, significant uncertainty remains as to the permissibility of tax deductions achieved through ETF swaps,” the report’s authors — Michael Dambra of the University of Buffalo and Andrew Glover, Charles M.C. Lee and Phillip Quinn of the University of Washington — wrote in the introduction. “Specifically, the IRS has not ruled on what constitutes a ‘substantially identical’ security, leaving financial advisors to navigate a foggy legal landscape. Some advisors seem to take the regulatory silence as tacit permission to swap ETFs that hold identical securities or that are even benchmarked to the same index (e.g., Lasser 2011). Others argue that if an investor’s economic position has not changed after swapping ETFs, the spirit of the wash sale rule has likely been violated (e.g., Fischer 2010). Against this backdrop of legal uncertainty, the extent to which investors engage in tax avoidance through ETF wash sales remains largely unknown.”

READ MORE: How a newly unified GOP government will affect ETFs

Representatives for the SEC declined to comment on the report’s conclusions and referred questions to the IRS, which didn’t provide a response.

The findings essentially “confirmed what all of us expected,” but “what was striking about the study was being able to demonstrate that the loss harvesting was material enough to be measured,” said Steve Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank.

Tax strategies around possible wash sales have been “going on for decades and decades and decades,” he noted. The rise of ETFs — which topped $10 trillion in assets for the first time in September in a shift fueled by technology, lower fees and tax advantages — has altered the picture. But it’s not clear whether IRS policymakers or members of Congress will try to rein in the wash-sale practices documented in the report.

“I don’t think they view this as high on their agenda, because there’s other tax evasion that goes on. This is lawful, and the question is whether it’s pushing the limits,” Rosenthal said in an interview. “It’s just easier now. There are more vehicles, there are more opportunities, there is more technology to help plan and there are more people marketing these strategies as a result of the ease.”

The study hasn’t been published by a peer-reviewed journal, and the researchers listed some possible “sources of noise” in the data they tracked from quarterly SEC filings of firms’ holdings known as Form 13F and granular trading records from financial technology firm AbelNoser Solutions, a Trading Technologies company. Some swap trades of correlated ETFs could have occurred at random, between the quarterly filings, at lower than 99% matches in their holdings or at an even greater volume when considering the growth of ETFs, the authors wrote.

“Exchange-traded funds provide an efficient way for investors to circumvent the trading frictions associated with the wash sale rule,” Dambra and the other academics wrote. “Specifically, investors can sell a depreciated ETF security and realize a capital loss while simultaneously purchasing another ‘nearly identical’ ETF security. This form of swap trading allows investors to maintain a substantively identical economic position while harvesting a capital loss that can be used to offset realized gains and other taxable income. With an explosion in available ETFs over the past two decades, these securities have become ideal vehicles for circumventing the wash sale rule.”

READ MORE: The most wonderful time of the year, for tax-loss harvesting

Their research suggests that ETFs can offer even greater tax efficiency than many experts have pointed out in the past — or that the IRS may be ignoring the enforcement of a rule that has restricted loss harvesting maneuvers for more than a century.   

“The expansion of ETFs has provided investors with a new, low-cost tool whereby capital losses can be realized without disturbing an optimal portfolio,” the authors wrote. “Similar to the findings in Li (2024), we find the introduction of a near-identical ETF leads to more volume activity for the incumbent ETF. Next, we find that tax-sensitive institutions hold a more diverse set of highly correlated ETFs, invest a larger portion of their AUM in these ETFs, engage in more swapping between near-identical ETFs and capture more capital losses with this swapping activity. We estimate conservatively that capital loss recognition attributable to annual swapping among tax-sensitive institutional investors is in the tens of billions of dollars. While this behavior is becoming increasingly widespread and economically important, regulators have remained silent on where ETFs fit in their definition of ‘substantially identical securities.’ We contribute to the policy discussion on the potential costs of that continued silence.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Accounting

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Published

4 days ago

on

September 5, 2026

By

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Corporate accounting departments face an expanded regulatory mandate as mandatory sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting frameworks take full effect internationally. Governed by the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) IFRS S1 and S2 standards, enterprise financial controllers are now legally required to track, verify, and report non-financial data with the same internal controls and auditability as traditional financial statements.

The expansion shifts ESG compliance

This regulatory expansion shifts ESG compliance from marketing departments to corporate accounting offices. Financial managers are now responsible for gathering, consolidating, and verifying carbon emissions metrics, supply chain labor conditions, water usage, and climate risk exposures across multi-tiered corporate structures. These non-financial metrics must be integrated into standardized general ledgers to withstand rigorous third-party audit assurance processes.

To comply with these rigorous reporting mandates, accounting software providers have added dedicated ESG modules designed to aggregate data from IoT sensors, utility platforms, and vendor management systems. Controllers are implementing internal control frameworks—modeled after traditional COSO frameworks—to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of sustainability disclosures, protecting organizations against greenwashing penalties and litigation risks.

The transition requires significant cross-functional collaboration between accounting teams, legal counsel, and operational directors. Accounting professionals are expanding their technical expertise beyond financial ledgers to master carbon accounting methodologies, lifecycle assessment standards, and non-financial data governance protocols, fundamentally expanding the role of the modern corporate accountant.

Why This Information Matters
Mandatory ESG disclosures require companies to treat environmental and social metrics as audited financial records. Executives, accountants, and board members must institute formal tracking and assurance processes to satisfy legal mandates, maintain investor confidence, and mitigate regulatory non-compliance risks.

Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

2 weeks ago

on

August 25, 2026

By

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.

What the SEC Proposed

According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.

The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.

Why Investors Are Pushing Back

Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.

Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.

Lessons From the U.K. Experience

The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.

Practical Implications for Finance Teams

Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.

Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.

What to Watch Next

The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.

Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.

 

Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

4 weeks ago

on

August 15, 2026

By

The accounting profession is undergoing a fundamental structural transition as enterprise finance departments shift from periodic month-end closes toward automated continuous accounting models. By integrating specialized machine learning algorithms directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, chief accounting officers are transforming financial reporting from a retrospective exercise into a real-time operational asset.

The Shift from Periodic Close to Continuous Financial Reporting
Traditional accounting workflows heavily relied on manual data reconciliation, spreadsheet calculations, and multi-week closing cycles at the end of each fiscal period. In contrast, continuous accounting frameworks utilize automated software agents to process, validate, and post transactional data in real time as business activities occur.

Automated bank reconciliation tools cross-reference incoming bank feeds, invoice records, and purchase orders automatically. By resolving transactional variances instantly throughout the month, corporate accounting teams eliminate the traditional workload spikes associated with quarterly and annual closes.

Machine Learning in Audit Trails and Anomaly Detection
Advanced natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning tools are redefining internal audit and financial control environments. Automated systems analyze 100% of general ledger entries, identifying anomalous transactions, duplicate payments, and unauthorized journal entries in real time.

Rather than relying on random statistical sampling, corporate internal auditors can focus their attention on high-risk flags automatically surfaced by algorithmic monitoring platforms. This continuous risk assessment strengthens internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and significantly reduces fraud risk.

Evolving Roles for Accounting Professionals
As routine data entry and manual reconciliation tasks become fully automated, the skill set required for accounting professionals is shifting toward data analysis, system design, and strategic business advisory.
– Systems Governance: Accountants are increasingly responsible for monitoring algorithmic accuracy and managing data integration pipelines.
– Business Partnership: Finance professionals leverage real-time financial dashboards to advise operational leaders on margin management and working capital allocation.
– Regulatory Compliance Management: Accounting teams utilize automated platforms to ensure compliance with dynamic tax codes and international accounting standards.

Core Implementation Recommendations
1. Deploy Automated Reconciliation Tools: Integrate continuous transaction processing modules into existing enterprise ERP architectures.
2. Establish Algorithmic Governance Controls: Implement strict internal testing protocols to ensure automated accounting rules comply with GAAP/IFRS standards.
3. Reskill Accounting Teams: Invest in training finance staff on data analytics, workflow automation, and predictive financial modeling.

Continue Reading

Trending