The nearing November elections will be determinative for tax outcomes, say observers. That’s not just due to the presidential election, according to Rochelle Hodes, Washington National Tax Office principal at Top 25 Firm Crowe. “It’s not just the presidential election,” she said. “Both houses of Congress are also at stake and might tip either way.”
“The tax proposals are not the kind that are able to be implemented by regulation or executive order,” she explained. “There is significant complication this time around, including the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions. Whoever takes control of the next Congress will have to figure out what to do about those provisions. The cost of extending all of the provisions is $4.6 trillion. Most of them are related to individuals. If they are allowed to expire, that would raise the tax for many individuals, which is an unattractive proposition for any president or for Congress. The decision will have to be made about which will be allowed to expire, whether or not some of the provisions will be changed in order to accommodate whatever budget goals are agreed upon, then the decision and consensus will have to be made concerning offsets to pay for the resolution of expiring provisions.”
Each party has taken a position on the TCJA, noted Hodes. “On the Republican side, the TCJA was the central tax policy accomplishment of the Trump administration,” she said. “They would make permanent the double standard deduction, for example. It’s unclear whether or not they want to extend only the positive and not the negative provisions. For example, the SALT cap of $10,000 has been very unpopular with high-tax states. While a lot of them might be blue states, a lot of the rest and Congress are not. So SALT has garnered a lot of attention. In general, Republicans want to make the expiring provisions permanent.”
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris
Stephen Maturen/Getty Images and/Photographer: Stephen Maturen/Ge
Meanwhile, she continued, “The Democrats and the Harris campaign have put forth the view that they are in favor of extending the expiring provisions to the extent that an individual making less than $400,000 per year and small businesses are not going to have an increase in tax. There has been much written about how that will be accomplished.”
Of the two different approaches to the TCJA, the Democrats may be “easier” in that they have put forth offsets for the TCJA extension in light of the $400,000 limit.
Additional Harris proposals focus on the middle class and small business, according to Hodes. “They have offsets they can get, such as a 25% minimum tax on those with more than $100 million in wealth, raising the corporate tax from 21% to 28%. Their raise in the capital gains tax rate is interesting in that Harris recently took a stand that was less of an increase than originally planned in the Green Book — 28% for those with income of more than $1 million. Interestingly, I had trouble getting more concrete information about whether that would also cover qualified dividends. It was unclear from their statement if they were tied together, and was also unclear about the investment income tax. The Green Book proposal to increase that tax, as well as her comments, did not address that, so our chart [available here] assumes that the increase in the Green Book is where Harris would be. All of these increases are raised off the extension of expiring provisions for those making less than $400,000.”
On the Republican side, there are different views about offsets and when they are needed, she added: “For instance, there is a group of Republicans that view many of the TCJA provisions as good for the economy that would drive increases in the economy and economic growth so that an offset would not be necessary. It doesn’t appear that there is a consensus on which provisions in the TCJA should be permanent. How do you figure out who will win in negotiations and how do you plan for uncertainty — that kind of planning is what a lot of them will have to engage in. Some of that uncertainty will be removed after the election.”
For high-net-worth individuals subject to the estate tax, things will become more complicated, according to Hodes. “If either party wins a majority in both houses as well as the presidency, there will be a better understanding of the direction of how the TCJA issues will be resolved, and the direction that other legislation might take,” she explained. “If we have a divided government, I don’t think the November elections will bring much clarity. There will be proposals that will start to develop momentum, as well as some extenders during the lame duck session, but I don’t believe the TCJA can be resolved then. The year 2025 is going to be a very interesting tax legislative year.”
Hodes advised taxpayers to look at the various proposals and identify those that really make a difference — for example, corporate and individual rates for the highest earners. The expiration of Code Section 199A, the qualified business income deduction for pass-throughs, is set to expire. “A lot of small businesses rely on this,” she said. “Does it make another entity more attractive to conduct business? Entities that have taken the deduction need to model and see how a combination of changes will affect them.”
Meanwhile, the Harris proposal to tax unrealized capital gains, if it gains traction in a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, could become the most difficult proposal in the Tax Code to administer, according to Jeffrey Kelson, co-leader of the national tax practice at Top 25 Firm EisnerAmper.
“Harris expressed broad support for a plan to introduce a minimum income tax of 25%. Anyone with a net wealth of more than $100 million would be subject to a prepayment of tax on unrealized gain. If the asset were held and subsequently went down in value, they would be eligible for a refund,” he noted. “Once this is done, it would be necessary to start all over again to value the assets for the next year. It would be very difficult on both sides, and a lot of people might have to sell assets to pay the tax.”
Jody Padar, an author and speaker known as “The Radical CPA,” and Katie Tolin, a growth strategist for CPAs, together launched a training and technology platform called XcelLabs.
XcelLabs provides solutions to help accountants use artificial technology fluently and strategically. The Pennsylvania Institute of CPAs and CPA Crossings joined with Padar and Tolin as strategic partners and investors.
“To reinvent the profession, we must start by training the professional who can then transform their firms,” Padar said in a statement. “By equipping people with data and insights that help them see things differently, they can provide better advice to their clients and firm.”
Jody Padar
The platform includes XcelLabs Academy, a series of educational online courses on the basics of AI, being a better advisor, leadership and practice management; Navi, a proprietary tool that uses AI to help accountants turn unstructured data like emails, phone calls and meetings into insights; and training and consulting services. These offerings are currently in beta testing.
“Accountants know they need to be more advisory, but not everyone can figure out how to do it,” Tolin said in a statement. “Couple that with the fact that AI will be doing a lot of the lower-level work accountants do today, and we need to create that next level advisor now. By showing accountants how to unlock patterns in their actions and turn client conversations into emotionally intelligent advice, we can create the accounting professional of the future.”
Katie Tolin
“AI is transforming how CPAs work, and XcelLabs is focused on helping the profession evolve with it,” PICPA CEO Jennifer Cryder said in a statement. “At PICPA, we’re proud to support a mission that aligns so closely with ours: empowering firms to use AI not just for efficiency, but to drive growth, value and long-term relevance.”
The accountant the world urgently needs has evolved far beyond the traditional role we recognized just a few years ago.
The transformation of the accounting profession is not merely an anticipated change; it is a pressing reality that is currently shaping business decisions, academic programs and the expected contributions of professionals. Yet, in many areas, accounting education stubbornly clings to outdated, overly technical models that fail to connect with the actual demands of the market. We must confront a critical question: If we continue to train accountants solely to file tax reports, are we truly equipping them for the challenges of today’s world?
This shift in mindset extends beyond individual countries or educational systems; it is a global movement. The recent announcement of the CIMA/CGMA 2026 syllabus has made it unmistakably clear: merely knowing how to post journal entries is insufficient. Today’s accountants are required to interpret the landscape, anticipate risks and act with strategic awareness. Critical thinking, sustainable finance, technology and human behavior are not just supplementary topics; they are essential components in the education of any professional seeking to remain relevant.
The CIMA/CGMA proposal for 2026 is not just a curriculum update; it is a powerful manifesto. This new program positions analytical thinking, strategic business partnering and technology application at the core of accounting education. It unequivocally highlights sustainability, aligning with IFRS S1 and S2, and expands the accountant’s responsibilities beyond mere numbers to encompass conscious leadership, environmental impact and corporate governance.
The current changes in the accounting profession underscore an urgent shift in expectations from both educators and employers. Today, companies of all sizes and industries demand accountants who can do far more than interpret balance sheets. They expect professionals who grasp the deeper context behind the numbers, identify inconsistencies, anticipate potential issues before they escalate into losses, and act decisively as a bridge between data and decision making.
To meet these expectations, a radical mindset shift is essential. There are firms still operating on autopilot, mindlessly repeating tasks with minimal critical analysis. Likewise, many academic programs continue to treat accounting as purely a technical discipline, disregarding the vital elements of reflection, strategy and behavioral insight. This outdated approach creates a significant mismatch. While the world forges ahead, parts of the accounting profession remain stuck in the past.
The consequences of this shift are already becoming evident. The demand for compliance, transparency and sustainability now applies not only to large corporations but also to small and mid-sized businesses. Many of these organizations rely on professionals ill-equipped to drive the necessary changes, putting both business performance and the reputation of the profession at risk.
The positive news is that accountants who are ready to thrive in this new era do not necessarily need additional degrees. What they truly need is a commitment to awareness, a dedication to continuous learning, and the courage to step beyond their comfort zones. The future of accounting is here, and it is firmly rooted in analytical, strategic and human-oriented perspectives. The 2026 curriculum is a clear indication of the changes underway. Those who fail to think critically and holistically will be left behind.
In contrast, accountants who see the big picture, understand the ripple effects of their decisions, and actively contribute to the financial and ethical health of organizations will undeniably remain indispensable, anywhere in the world.
Congressional Republicans are siding with Donald Trump in the messy divorce between the president and Elon Musk, an optimistic sign for eventual passage of a tax cut bill at the root of the two billionaires’ public feud.
Lawmakers are largely taking their cues from Trump and sticking by the $3 trillion bill at the center of the White House’s economic agenda. Musk, the biggest political donor of the 2024 cycle, has threatened to help primary anyone who votes for the legislation, but lawmakers are betting that staying in the president’s good graces is the safer path to political survival.
“The tax bill is not in jeopardy. We are going to deliver on that,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Friday.
“I’ll tell you what — do not doubt, don’t second guess and do not challenge the President of the United States Donald Trump,” he added. “He is the leader of the party. He’s the most consequential political figure of our time.”
A fight between Trump and Musk exploded into public view this week. The sparring started with the tech titan calling the president’s tax bill a “disgusting abomination,” but quickly escalated to more personal attacks and Trump threatening to cancel all federal contracts and subsidies to Musk’s companies, such as Tesla Inc. and SpaceX which have benefitted from government ties.
Republicans on Capitol Hill, who had — until recently — publicly embraced Musk, said they weren’t swayed by the billionaire’s criticism that the bill cost too much. Lawmakers have refuted official estimates of the package, saying that the tax cuts for households, small businesses and politically important groups — including hospitality and hourly workers — will generate enough economic growth to offset the price tag.
“I don’t tell my friend Elon, I don’t argue with him about how to build rockets, and I wish he wouldn’t argue with me about how to craft legislation and pass it,” Johnson told CNBC earlier Friday.
House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington told reporters that House lawmakers are focused on working with the Senate as it revises the bill to make sure the legislation has the political support in both chambers to make it to Trump’s desk for his signature.
“We move past the drama and we get the substance of what is needed to make the modest improvements that can be made,” he said.
House fiscal hawks said that they hadn’t changed their prior positions on the legislation based on Musk’s statements. They also said they agree with GOP leaders that there will be other chances to make further spending cuts outside the tax bill.
Representative Tom McClintock, a fiscal conservative, said “the bill will pass because it has to pass,” adding that both Musk and Trump needed to calm down. “They both need to take a nap,” he said.
Even some of the House bill’s most vociferous critics appeared resigned to its passage. Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie, who voted against the House version, predicted that despite Musk’s objections, the Senate will make only small changes.
“The speaker is right about one thing. This barely passed the House. If they muck with it too much in the Senate, it may not pass the House again,” he said.
Trump is pressuring lawmakers to move at breakneck speed to pass the tax-cut bill, demanding they vote on the bill before the July 4 holiday. The president has been quick to blast critics of the bill — including calling Senator Rand Paul “crazy” for objecting to the inclusion of a debt ceiling increase in the package.
As the legislation worked its way through the House last month, Trump took to social media to criticize holdouts and invited undecided members to the White House to compel them to support the package. It passed by one vote.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune — who is planning to unveil his chamber’s version of the bill as soon as next week — said his timeline is unmoved by Musk.
“We are already pretty far down the trail,” he said.