Connect with us

Accounting

I’m a CPA and my client claimed a questionable Employee Retention Credit. Now what?

Published

on

The Internal Revenue Service announced in March that its compliance efforts related to the Employee Retention Credit had exceeded $1 billion, with the agency specifying that “more than 12,000 entities filed over 22,000 claims that were improper and resulted in $572 million in assessments.”

According to the IRS, which as of the end of February 2024 had initiated more than 386 criminal cases in the ERC space, enforcement efforts will only continue to expand. IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel has also made it clear that the IRS is taking erroneous ERC claims seriously, recently commenting that the agency remains “concerned about widespread abuse involving these claims that have harmed small businesses.”

In the face of these eye-popping statistics, and the IRS adding ERC fraud to its “Dirty Dozen” list of abusive tax schemes, the question for accountants across the U.S. becomes: “What is my responsibility if my client presents me with a questionable ERC claim?” More importantly, accountants need to ask themselves what personal risks they take on if they push through an ERC calculation they suspect could be inaccurate.

The IRS Office of Professional Responsibility released guidance on March 7 regarding how tax professionals can ensure they are meeting their Circular 230 professional responsibilities when dealing with a potentially erroneous claim from a third party.

Citing Section 10.22(a) of Circular 230, the IRS OPR stated that if “the practitioner cannot reasonably conclude … that the client is or was eligible to claim the ERC then the practitioner should not prepare an original or amended return that claims or perpetuates a potentially improper credit.”

The IRS OPR went on to state that, as a best practice, tax practitioners should consider advising their clients of the option to file an amended return, as well as penalties for noncompliance.

In short, Section 10.22(a) cited in the guidance binds accountants to diligence as to the accuracy of the claim and requires a reasonable inquiry to confirm the client’s ERC eligibility, as well as further inquiry into the credit calculation if it appears to be incorrect, incomplete, or inconsistent.

IRS OPR Director Sharyn Fisk has been on record cautioning that the agency is more frequently auditing taxpayers who claim credits that they are not entitled to and that the IRS “can’t ignore information that’s inconsistent, incomplete or incorrect.”

Fisk has gone on to say that accountants aren’t exercising due diligence if they fail to ask the question of a client or a third party who calculated an ERC, while noting that documentation is critical for tax practitioners to protect themselves. 

The American Institute of CPAs has also issued warnings to accountants reviewing ERC calculations from third-party providers. The AICPA stated in Risk Alert 2.1.23 that if a “client’s ERC claim is later denied, the client may allege the CPA, through its preparation of the tax return reflecting the ERC claimed, tacitly agreed with it, thus negating all prior written warnings provided to the client.”

The AICPA added that, if asked by a client to prepare a return using information from a third party, including ERC calculations, accountants “should first obtain a signed engagement letter defining which federal and state tax returns require preparation or amendment and then evaluate the information in accordance with professional standards.”

In terms of factors to consider when an accountant is vetting an ERC calculation, the IRS has provided a list of “red flags” for taxpayers and tax practitioners to look out for, which include a third party being able to determine ERC eligibility “within minutes” and large upfront fees to claim the credit. 

In short, accountants who are seeing a noticeable lack of documentation to support a credit, or excessively high ERC calculation based on what they know of their client, should take steps to validate the figure, including consulting with those firms that specialized in tax credits prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, before moving forward.

Return preparers who fail to take note of these red flags and either proceed with ERC calculations they know aren’t reasonable, or fail to amend an existing claim, might face consequences themselves, including possible disciplinary proceedings from IRS OPR for those who have ignored Circular 230, as well as possible preparer penalties under Section 6694 or 6701 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As stated, the IRS’s ERC enforcement campaign is far from over. And although the agency’s Voluntary Disclosure Program for ERC ended on March 22, there are still some options available. Tax practitioners should inform their client of the option to withdraw a questionable ERC if monies have not yet been received.

American CPAs cannot, and should not, accept ERC calculations they feel lack a reasonable basis. As a result, it is incumbent upon accountants faced with questionable ERC figures to ask the right questions and consult established tax consulting firms in order to validate the ERC figure at issue.

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