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.”
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.
WASHINGTON — In a major escalation of cross-border trade friction, U.S. President Donald Trump has signed executive orders imposing new 50% tariffs on a wide selection of Canadian exports, citing discriminatory practices by Ottawa targeting American auto, dairy, and beverage industries.
The new duties, announced Monday, will take effect in 30 days. They target a broad spectrum of consumer and industrial goods—ranging from wine, liquor, and milk products to commercial cement, furniture, clothing, and hockey equipment.
Untested Legal Mechanism
To enact the sweeping measures, the administration invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930—a rarely used legal provision allowing the executive branch to levy additional tariffs of up to 50% on foreign nations deemed to discriminate against U.S. commerce.
White House officials noted that Section 338 addresses trade discrimination rather than national security or economic emergencies. The move comes months after prior global emergency tariffs faced legal challenges in domestic courts, signaling Washington’s pivot toward alternate statutory authorities to maintain import duties.
Senior administration officials briefed reporters that the measure directly responds to Canadian provincial bans on U.S. alcohol, restrictions on American vehicle exports, and import quota disparities affecting U.S. dairy and cheese producers relative to third-party trading partners.
“While the administration continues to secure reciprocal trade agreements globally, Canada retaliated against efforts to protect domestic industry,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated.
USMCA Impact and Carve-Outs
Significantly, the newly ordered 50% duties will apply to designated items even if they otherwise comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
However, the administration confirmed key targeted exemptions:
Energy products (including oil and natural gas)
Potash and critical minerals
Fish and seafood
Goods already governed by sector-specific duties (such as existing steel and aluminum tariffs)
Administration representatives emphasized that the tariffs do not stem from recent disputes concerning drifting Canadian wildfire smoke, noting that policy options regarding environmental spillover remain under separate review.
Canadian Response and Market Reaction
Following the White House announcement, the Canadian dollar experienced a sharp decline against the U.S. dollar, falling approximately 0.4% during evening trading.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a statement emphasizing that Canada’s earlier counter-duties had merely matched previous U.S. trade actions. “Canada stands ready to engage intensively to address outstanding issues with the U.S. to the mutual benefit of our citizens,” Carney stated, pointing to detailed proposals Ottawa submitted to modernize the USMCA framework.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford took a firmer stance, urging a “dollar-for-dollar” reciprocal response if the measures go into effect on August 19.
With a 30-day implementation window before the duties officially lock in, industry associations and trade groups on both sides of the border are calling for urgent bilateral negotiations to avert further supply chain disruption across North America.
The traditional accounting paradigm—defined by periodic monthly closures and post-hoc annual audits—is rapidly giving way to continuous, automated financial oversight. As of July 2026, forward-thinking accounting practices and multinational corporate finance departments are leveraging continuous auditing systems powered by advanced machine learning models. These systems monitor operational transactions in real time, shifting audit methodologies from sample-based post-analysis to absolute, 100% transaction-level verification.
The operational advantages of continuous auditing are transformative. Standard auditing procedures historically relied on statistical sampling, which, despite rigorous methodology, inherently left gaps where anomalies or fraudulent transactions could go undetected for months. Modern continuous auditing platforms integrate directly with enterprise resource planning (ERP) databases, instantly cross-referencing purchase orders, invoices, bank feeds, and tax records. Any deviation from established control parameters or unusual transaction behavior triggers immediate flags for internal audit teams, dramatically reducing detection lag from quarters to seconds.
Beyond fraud prevention, continuous auditing fundamentally alters internal reporting and decision-making. Executive leadership no longer has to wait weeks after the close of a quarter to evaluate precise financial standing; real-time verified ledger data provides an uninterrupted view of operating margins, tax liabilities, and cash flow dynamics. This real-time visibility enables corporate controllers to adjust capital allocation strategies dynamically, mitigating liquidity constraints and capitalizing on emerging commercial opportunities far more efficiently than competitors bound to legacy reporting cycles.
However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting professionals to acquire new analytical capabilities. The role of the auditor is evolving from manual data reconciliation toward system validation, algorithmic model governance, and strategic risk interpretation. Accounting firms and corporate finance departments must invest in continuous technical education, ensuring that audit staff possess the data engineering skills necessary to design, maintain, and evaluate complex automated compliance systems.