Connect with us

Accounting

IRS gives new guidance for scam victims to deduct theft loss

Published

on

The Internal Revenue Service has issued a chief counsel memorandum that offers guidance on who is eligible to take a theft loss deduction for scams. The memorandum, No. 202511015, released March 25, 2025, addresses a number of common scenarios and analyzes the deductibility of each. 

This is important because under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, personal casualty losses are limited to losses incurred in a disaster zone, according to James Creech, a director at the tax advocacy and controversy practice of Top 10 Firm Baker Tilly. 

“These scams are just becoming so prevalent and there are so many variations,” he said. “And the scammers are sophisticated. Foreign organized crime is reaching in and targeting U.S. taxpayers, and the losses can be extremely damaging. But because they’re able to cast a wide net, there are a lot of taxpayers who had smaller losses as well.”

A taxpayer who suffers a smaller loss might not have the sophistication to know they could be entitled to take a theft loss deduction, or the facts and circumstances that may make it hard to fit into the Code Section 165(c)(2) profit motive exception to the TCJA limitations.

Over the past few years, Creech has been working with a number of taxpayers who suffered large, catastrophic losses where it made sense to get professional advice. 

irs-podium.jpg

“The problem is that, especially when the money is being stolen out of retirement funds, there’s a Form 1099-R that comes out of the brokerage,” he explained. “You’ve got a lifetime of income that gets accelerated into one year, so you look like a million-dollar earner on paper but have no money. In that circumstance, it makes sense to find somebody like myself or another tax professional who could look at the facts and examine whether there was a profit motive in this loss.”

If the taxpayer is a retired schoolteacher or office worker, they might have lost $100,000 out of their 401(k) and may not even know about the loss, Creech noted.

“And they may not have the money to hire someone to prepare a memo on this as to what their intent was,” he added. “This guidance from the IRS changes that. Now there’s an ability for solo and small CPA firms to look at the losses that happen to their clients, especially losses that are on the more modest scale, and take a deduction consistent with the guidance. So it’s very helpful from a tax equity standpoint.”

“A lot of these scams start with an impersonation of a government agent or a bank officer saying your account is in jeopardy,” Creech said. “It’s either been hacked or the criminals see a fake account using your name. ‘We need you to move your assets to someplace safe, and once you’ve moved them we’ll return them to you. We’re really trying to protect your money.'”

The IRS guidance for this is the first Creech has seen address the motive head on: “When people are moving their money to keep it safe, the motive of doing that is to preserve future profits of the income, so there could be a profit motive for trying to keep your assets safe. And asset preservation has a profit motive. That portion of the guidance was enormously helpful, because it gives support for people that are the victims of those theft losses to take the deduction. It’s heartbreaking to see non-wealthy people get scammed like that — they’ve lost their money and they owe a huge tax bill. At least there’s a portion of them that deduct the loss.”

“But it’s just as heartbreaking to see those who lost their money in a scam that was not entered into for profit, such as the fake romance or the fake medical condition,” he noted. “For example, ‘I really love you and want to come to the U.S. so we can be together, but I really need some money to settle up some debts I have here.’ Or ‘I need medical treatment in order to live, but once I get treated I’ll come and we can be together.’ It’s still painful for the victims of the scam, but in these cases they don’t get the deduction because there was no profit motive.”

The sole silver lining for many is the withholding, according to Creech: “If there’s 24% stuck in withholding and if you can claim the loss deduction and get the withholding back, it makes an incredible difference. Sometimes that’s the only cash these people will have to live on for the rest of their life, because they lost everything else.”

How does one avoid becoming a victim? Make sure you have a “trusted contact.” Every brokerage account has a place on its application to name a trusted contact, noted Creech: “They are supposed to reach out to you, and say, ‘Hey James, your dad is about to wire $300,000 to China — is this legitimate?”

This allows the trusted contract to veto the transaction and check out what’s happening. 

“I’ve seen so many of these scams where a trusted contact would have nipped it in the bud,” said Creech. “But because the victim didn’t complete the trusted contact section on the application, they’re out of luck. A trusted contact is a circuit breaker that allows the contact to pause the transaction until they can check the legitimacy of it.”

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

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

Trending