The Granite State’s latest move to protect businesses from sales tax legislation, HB 135, was introduced on Jan. 8, 2025. It states that “no New Hampshire business shall be required to collect sales taxes for a foreign jurisdiction [a.k.a., another state] unless mandated by Congress or New Hampshire law.” It’s no surprise that New Hampshire had taken this position, according to Scott Peterson, vice president for tax policy and government relations at Avalara: “They have always been the most vocal against the belief that their in-state retailers should have to collect sales tax on behalf of customers in other states. They believe that it’s really complicated to collect sales tax, and they don’t want their in-state businesses to have to comply with other states’ onerous regulations.”
The state is in a bind because one state can’t simply pass a law stipulating that no other state can force a New Hampshire retailer to collect their sales tax, Peterson said. “So the proposed bill says there is an obligation on the part of other states to make a good-faith effort to make sales tax compliance simpler for New Hampshire retailers,” he explained.
Welcome to New Hampshire state road sign
Joseph Sohm/spiritofamerica – stock.adobe.com
This has been met by a lack of understanding on how to deal with New Hampshire, according to Peterson: “It’s an odd conversation — state attorney generals and governors don’t like criticizing one another on matters such as this. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that retailers need to comply with existing state-by-state sales tax laws.”
There currently is no legal maneuvering to get this issue into court, according to Peterson. “In state-on-state conflicts, this would likely go straight to the Supreme Court,” he said.
At present, this leaves a number of unanswered questions:
How far will New Hampshire take this — will they soften the language to focus on meaningful reform?
Will other states agree to bend a bit to comply with slightly different regulations in New Hampshire?
“It is unlikely that other states will become more flexible to accommodate New Hampshire,” said Peterson. “Probably the only way to deal with the present proposed legislation is to attempt to drag neighboring states into court.” It is possible that the law will just sit in place for a year or more and not be challenged, Peterson believes, “but there will likely be an eventual court case. It would come from another state that wants a New Hampshire retailer to collect their state tax. A jeopardy assessment is the state department of revenue’s best case at how much revenue is coming from out-of-state business, how much tax is owed, and going into the state where that business resides and taking it to court in that case. New Hampshire likely doesn’t have standing to sue another state unless that state is forcing New Hampshire retailers to collect, so this almost has to start with another state suing New Hampshire.”
Of course, it is possible that New Hampshire retailers will simply decide to go ahead and comply with other states, if they accept the likelihood that New Hampshire is in a losing battle.
“They might decide, ‘The heck with it, let’s just go ahead and start collecting sales tax in other states regardless of our state law,'” Peterson said. “It’s not likely to be an effective law. Imagine being a retailer who needs to go to court and must wait until New Hampshire almost inevitably loses the case. Then the retailer owes back sales tax for however long they failed to collect.”
“It’s clear that New Hampshire has not thought through the burden that this bill conceivably will place on their in-state retailers,” he concluded.
In a decisive move toward standardized environmental financial reporting, accounting standards boards issued updated implementation guidance during the week ending July 25, 2026, regarding the formal recognition and valuation of corporate carbon offsets and environmental credits. The revised frameworks establish precise rules for how enterprises must measure, record, and disclose carbon credits on balance sheets, eliminating years of inconsistent reporting practices across public capital markets.
Under the finalized accounting standard, purchased carbon offsets can no longer be categorized under vague administrative expenses or unstandardized intangible asset accounts. Instead, organizations must classify environmental credits based on underlying operational intent—distinguishing between credits held for immediate compliance compliance obligations, long-term offset obligations, or active market trading. Furthermore, companies are required to evaluate carbon holdings for fair value impairment at the end of each reporting period, ensuring that depreciated or low-quality environmental credits do not distort corporate asset values.
The standardized rules carry significant implications for corporate audit committees and chief accounting officers. External audit firms are implementing rigorous verification protocols to validate the physical legitimacy, legal ownership, and scientific permanence of carbon credits claimed on balance sheets. Inaccurate or overstated carbon accounting claims now carry substantial financial litigation risk, alongside potential regulatory enforcement for misleading ESG disclosures.
To remain fully compliant, corporate accounting departments must establish centralized carbon tracking systems integrated into primary standard ERP ledgers. Accounting teams that proactively adopt standardized environmental reporting protocols will build investor credibility, streamline annual audit processes, and insulate their organizations against evolving regulatory scrutiny.
Corporate tax departments reached a critical juncture in automated operational management. With nations worldwide rapidly enacting digital service taxes, localized value-added tax (VAT) mandates, and real-time electronic invoicing requirements, manual tax calculations have become obsolete. Modern corporate tax divisions are aggressively deploying AI-driven tax engine software to automate complex cross-border indirect tax calculations in real time.
The imperative for automated tax compliance stems from the sheer complexity of current trade policies and multi-jurisdictional commerce. E-commerce platforms, software vendors, and global manufacturers face constantly changing regional tax rates, statutory exemption rules, and cross-border tariff structures. Automated tax engines embed directly into enterprise enterprise resource planning (ERP) architectures, automatically applying correct tax codes at the point of sale, calculating real-time withholding amounts, and generating compliant e-invoices.
Automated audit trail generation represents another key advantage of modern tax tech integration. Advanced compliance platforms log every transactional tax determination on immutable digital ledgers, providing tax authorities with transparent, self-verifying audit trails. This capability drastically reduces the operational duration and administrative cost of corporate tax audits, protecting enterprises against severe penalties resulting from calculation errors or missed reporting deadlines.
For chief financial officers and tax directors, investing in automated tax compliance is a vital operational risk mitigation strategy. Automating routine tax calculations frees high-level accounting professionals to focus on strategic tax planning, transfer pricing optimization, and risk management in an increasingly complex global economic environment.
As corporate accounting departments cross the threshold into late July 2026, the adoption of continuous, automated auditing systems has reached a definitive turning point. Driven by advances in artificial intelligence and deep integration with modern Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platforms, leading finance organizations are moving away from traditional, periodic post-hoc audits in favor of real-time, 100% transactional verification. This technological transition is redefining internal control environments, reducing compliance costs, and eliminating the structural delays inherent in legacy quarterly closing processes.
Unlike traditional auditing frameworks that rely on statistical sampling—a process that inevitably leaves operational blind spots—continuous auditing software monitors operational data feeds continuously. Every purchase order, electronic invoice, payroll disbursement, and cross-border wire transfer is automatically cross-referenced against established corporate governance parameters, regulatory tax schedules, and anti-fraud algorithms in real time. Anomalies or unauthorized ledger entries are flagged instantly, allowing internal audit teams to investigate and remediate compliance gaps immediately rather than months after the close of a financial period.
The implications for executive financial management are far-reaching. By embedding continuous verification directly into daily transaction workflows, chief financial officers gain uninterrupted visibility into the organization’s true financial standing. Real-time balance sheet auditing eliminates the severe operational bottlenecks associated with month-end and quarter-end financial reconciliations, freeing accounting professionals to focus on strategic financial modeling, tax planning, and capital allocation rather than manual data entry and spreadsheet consolidation.
However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting leadership to invest heavily in data governance and technical upskilling. Internal audit teams must evolve from manual ledger reviewers into system architects capable of auditing complex algorithms and validating automated data pipelines. Accounting firms and corporate controllers that master continuous auditing will establish a resilient compliance framework capable of meeting stringent international regulatory standards with total transparency.