Connect with us

Accounting

IRS and Treasury offer guidance on corporate minimum tax

Published

on

The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department issued proposed regulations Thursday offering guidance on the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax.  

The Inflation Reduction Act created the CAMT, which imposes a 15% minimum tax on the adjusted financial statement income (AFSI) of large corporations for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2022. The CAMT generally applies to large corporations with an average annual AFSI exceeding $1 billion.  

The proposed regulations that came out Thursday include definitions and general rules for determining and identifying AFSI. They also include rules regarding various statutory and regulatory adjustments in determining AFSI; determining if a corporation is subject to the CAMT, including rules for members of a foreign parented multinational group (FPMG) and the determination of the CAMT foreign tax credit. 

The proposed regulations also deal with the application of the CAMT to affiliated corporations filing a consolidated income tax return. 

irs-building-engraving.jpg
The Internal Revenue Service headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Samuel Corum/Bloomberg

The IRS had previously issued Notice 2023-07, Notice 2023-10, Notice 2023-64 and Notice 2024-10, to provide interim guidance on the CAMT. The proposed regulations issued today include rules incorporating this interim guidance. 

The IRS also issued Notice 2024-66 on Thursday, waiving the penalty for a corporation’s failure to pay estimated tax with respect to its CAMT for a taxable year that begins after Dec. 31, 2023, and before Jan. 1, 2025.

The Treasury estimates that approximately 100 of the largest and most profitable companies will pay the CAMT annually. These corporations would have otherwise paid an average effective federal tax rate of 2.6%. An estimated 60% of CAMT payers would otherwise have paid an effective tax rate of less than 1%, including 25% of payers that would have paid an effective tax rate of zero.

It said that’s because some of the largest and most profitable corporations in the country use tax preferences and aggressive planning strategies to pay little to no taxes. The corporations report record profits to shareholders while often paying lower tax rates than nurses, firefighters, police officers and teachers. Their ability to use complex strategies to avoid tax also gives them an unfair competitive advantage over small businesses, which don’t have access to the same tax planning techniques and high-paid lawyers and accountants. The Treasury contends the CAMT helps level the playing field for small businesses by imposing a minimum tax on the profits that the largest corporations report to their shareholders.

The Treasury’s NPRM would implement the statutory requirement that the biggest corporations pay a minimum 15% tax on profits reported to shareholders, with certain adjustments, to increase tax fairness and generate an estimated $250 billion over the next 10 years (2025-2034), including $20 billion in 2025.

The CAMT only applies to large corporations that average more than $1 billion in profit per year, not $1 billion in sales. In addition, if these corporations pay regular taxes that equal or exceed 15% of their adjusted profits, they would pay no additional tax. CAMT is designed as a backstop to ensure there are not years where the most profitable corporations in the world are paying minimal taxes.

“The proposed rules released by Treasury today are an important step toward realizing Congress’ efforts to address the most egregious U.S. corporate tax avoidance and ensure the largest and most profitable corporations in the country cannot pay little to no taxes,” said Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in a statement. “The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax will also help level the playing field for small businesses while generating hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue.” 

Crafting the rules to implement this tax has been one of the most significant projects the Treasury Department has undertaken in decades, the Treasury noted. Congress delegated a significant amount of authority to Treasury to implement the CAMT, and the Treasury and the IRS are implementing the law via these proposed regulations consistent with Congress’s statutory direction and intent.

In particular, as part of the legislative process, Congress chose to retain only a small number of regular tax preferences for the purpose of the minimum tax. The proposed rules follow suit and generally do not create adjustments to the tax base other than those directed by Congress. Consistent with the four notices Treasury previously issued to give taxpayers early clarity, the NPRM addresses limited and targeted cases where adjustments are clearly needed to accomplish congressional intent. For example, it addresses situations involving bankrupt and other troubled companies so that these companies can emerge from bankruptcy and continue to operate and employ their workers.

The Treasury noted that the guidance is a proposed rule. All stakeholders will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations by Dec. 12, 2024 and may request to speak at the public hearing on the proposed regulations scheduled for Jan. 16, 2025. The Treasury and the IRS plan to carefully consider all comments they receive on the proposed regulations and make changes based on those comments as appropriate. 

The Treasury and the IRS are being cautious about the regulations and guidance in light of a Supreme Court decision in June in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturning the longtime Chevron doctrine that gave federal agencies more leeway in interpreting statutes. The decision is expected to prompt more companies to challenge tax regulations. 

“On the tax side, I think it’s just going to lead to taxpayers being more willing to challenge the regulations that aren’t helpful to them,” said Brian Harvel, a tax lawyer at the firm Alston & Bird, during an interview last month. “I’m already seeing that in my practice where companies want to take positions and want to engage in transactions. There may be a relatively new reg, or in some cases an older reg. reg that is essentially inconsistent with the statute, or at least, there may not be authority under the statute, or provisions of the reg, and taxpayers are now more open to taking the position they want to take. There’s less of a concern with filing the form with a tax return that says the taxpayer is going to take a position inconsistent with the reg.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Published

on

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

on

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

on

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