The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has posted a series of online “knowledge checks,” or multiple-choice questions, to help auditors gauge their understanding of various aspects of the PCAOB’s new quality control standard.

Some of the topics in the knowledge checks include risk assessment, roles and responsibilities under QC 1000, considerations related to ethics and independence, and more. The knowledge checks are anonymous, the PCAOB noted, and the results won’t be made public or used in the PCAOB’s oversight activities.

The Securities and Exchange Commission approved the PCAOB’s QC standard in September. QC 1000, A Firm’s System of Quality Control, will require all registered public accounting firms to identify specific risks to their practice and design a quality control system that can safeguard against those risks. The standard will require an annual evaluation of firms’ QC systems and reporting to the PCAOB. It takes effect on Dec. 15, 2025.

Last November, the PCAOB posted two pieces of staff guidance to help auditing firms familiarize themselves with the new standard.

The House Ways and Means Committee passed a set of bipartisan bills aimed at improving tax filing and administration at the Internal Revenue Service.

Two of the bills, which were backed by the American Institute of CPAs, would treat electronic tax filing and payments the same as paper equivalents, and require the IRS to explain to taxpayers any reassessment due to alleged math errors. 

The Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act would apply the “mailbox rule” to electronically submitted tax returns and payments. Currently, documents and payments properly addressed and sent through the U.S. mail by the due date are considered to be timely, even if they’re received later, which is known as the “mailbox rule.” The legislation would expand that rule to include electronically submitted documents and payments that are submitted by the due date, even if the IRS processes them at a later date.

The Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act would enable payments electronically submitted to the IRS to be treated the same as those sent through the mail. In fiscal year 2023, over 213 million—79% of all filings— returns and other forms were filed electronically. The bill would enable electronic payments and documents that are submitted by midnight on the due date to be considered timely. The bill passed the committee by a unanimous vote of 41-0.

The IRS Math and Taxpayer Help Act aims to improve the transparency of the IRS in addressing and rectifying simple accounting mistakes on taxpayers’ returns. The Internal Revenue Code allows the IRS to make “math error” corrections, which are expedited adjustments to tax returns containing simple math or clerical errors. The bill would require the IRS to notify taxpayers of the specific reasoning for math errors and provide 60 days to challenge the IRS’s assessment of the alleged error. 

Each year, the IRS sends millions of “math error” notices to taxpayers that propose to adjust their tax liabilities. But the notices often don’t explain the reasons for the adjustments, and some are never received by the taxpayer due to lost mail. The IRS is not currently required to inform taxpayers that they must dispute the adjustments within 60 days if they disagree or generally forfeit their right to do so. As a result, many taxpayers fail to dispute the IRS assessment. The bill would require the IRS to ensure all math error notices provide a clear explanation of the alleged error including showing the mathematical change and informing taxpayers they have 60 days to challenge the alleged math error. The bill passed the committee by a unanimous vote of 43-0.

“The AICPA is pleased that these bills have been included in the markup and is encouraged by the momentum generated by these provisions moving forward in a bipartisan way,” said Melanie Lauridsen, vice president of tax policy and advocacy for the AICPA, in a statement Wednesday. “These policies are common-sense reforms that will significantly help taxpayers, tax practitioners and tax administration, and we assert our strong support for these bills. We look forward to continuing our work with the committee to advance comprehensive proposals to achieve these goals.”

The bills were also part of a set of IRS administrative proposals that were included late last month in a bipartisan discussion draft by leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Oregon. 

The House Ways and Means Committee also advanced several other bills in the package. One would help protect the independence of the National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS.

The National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act of 2025 would prevent IRS interference with National Taxpayer Advocate personnel by granting the NTA responsibility for its employees. In advocating for taxpayer rights, the National Taxpayer Advocate often requires independent legal advice, its proponents noted. Currently, staff hired by the National Taxpayer Advocate is accountable to internal IRS counsel, not the Taxpayer Advocate, creating a potential conflict of interest to the detriment of the taxpayer. The bill authorizes the National Taxpayer Advocate to hire attorneys who report directly to her, helping establish independence from the IRS. The bill passed the committee by a unanimous vote of 43-0.

The Recovery of Stolen Checks Act would require the IRS to create a process for taxpayers to request a replacement via direct deposit for a stolen paper check. If a check is determined to be stolen or lost, and not cashed, a taxpayer will receive a replacement check once the original check is cancelled, however many taxpayers are having their replacement checks stolen as well. Taxpayers who have a check stolen are then unable to request that the replacement check be sent via direct deposit. The bill would require the Treasury Secretary to establish processes and procedures under which taxpayers, who are otherwise eligible to receive an amount by paper check in replacement of a lost or stolen paper check, may elect to receive such amount by direct deposit. The bill passed the committee by a unanimous vote of 41-0.

The Pandemic Unemployment Fraud Enforcement Act would extend the statute of limitations for CARES Act-related unemployment insurance fraud from five to 10 years. The statute of limitations for prosecuting fraud in COVID-era pandemic unemployment insurance programs expires on March 27, 2025. After this date, Congress cannot retroactively change the statute of limitations on criminal prosecutions. The bill would extend the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions in pandemic unemployment programs from five to 10 years. The bill passed the committee by a more divided vote of 24 to 18.

“The statute of limitations for these investigations runs out in 43 days on March 27,” said House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith, R-Missouri. “If we don’t extend the statute of limitations, those that perpetrated the greatest theft of taxpayer dollars in American history will not be brought to justice.”

Taxes on seniors

Separately, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-New York, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced two pieces of legislation Monday to reduce the tax burden on seniors.

The Bonus Tax Relief for America’s Seniors Act, would amend the Tax Code to increase the additional bonus deduction for seniors age 65 and over from $1,950 to $5,000 for single filers, and from $3,100 to $10,000 for married couples. On average, this bipartisan legislation would reduce federal taxes by $2,100 for married couples filing jointly earning $85,000 per year.

The Tax Relief Unleashed for Seniors by Trump (TRUST) Act, would increase the amount of income that is tax exempt and index the threshold to inflation, allowing seniors to keep more of their benefits. The legislation would double current exempt income from $25,000 to $50,000 for single filers and from $32,000 to $64,000 for married couples age 65 and older.

“Our seniors have worked hard and paid taxes their whole lives and they should be able to keep more of their Social Security and retirement income without Uncle Sam trying to reach into their pockets again,” Malliotakis said in a statement. “Many of our seniors have been crushed by inflation, and are being forced to stretch their retirement savings further than ever before. The bills I’m introducing today would reduce the tax burden on our seniors, keep more money in their pockets and allow them to retire with greater financial security.”

Estate tax

Over in the Senate, a group of 46 Senate Republicans reintroduced legislation the Death Tax Repeal Act on Thursday to eliminate the estate tax. Senate Republicans had attempted to repeal the estate tax when Congress considered the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. The final version of the TCJA did not fully repeal the death tax, but it effectively doubled the individual estate and gift tax exclusion to $10 million (approximately $13.9 million in 2025 dollars) through 2025, which prevents more families and generationally owned businesses from being affected by this tax. The increased exclusion expires at the end of 2025. 

President Donald Trump is embarking on what may be his most disruptive action yet for the global economy by broadening his grievances to how other countries choose to tax and regulate.

Trump on Thursday ordered top economic officials to calculate new U.S. tariffs based on the total tariffs and tax, regulatory, currency and any other barriers that U.S. exports face. The new “reciprocal” duties would be calculated country by country. They will be laid out in a series of reports due by April 1 that officials said would first examine the economies with which the U.S. has the largest trade deficits.

“The numbers are going to be very fair but staggering. They’re going to be large,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he signed a memorandum ordering up the new tariffs.

The move, which Trump said would replace his campaign plan for a universal tariff on imports, immediately puts the European Union and countries including China, India, Mexico and Vietnam in the potential firing line, based on U.S. trade data.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Friday called Trump’s plan a “step in the wrong direction” and an act of self-harm. By raising tariffs, the U.S. “is taxing its own citizens, raising costs for business, stifling growth and fueling inflation,” she said.

Reaction was swift from other major U.S. trading partners. During a joint conference with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday, Trump said the two countries would start trade negotiations. Indian officials Friday said they’re looking to boost oil and gas imports from the U.S. — a vow that countries from Japan to Vietnam have already made.

Asian exporters

In Tokyo on Friday, Japan also said it’s reaching out to Washington to start discussions. Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te pledged to boost military spending in a sign of further cooperation with the US against China. South Korea— which along with Japan was singled out by a White House official on a call with reporters — released a statement highlighting the low effective tariff rate on U.S. goods.

Trump’s plan would, if implemented, mark a departure from how the U.S. has approached tariffs for almost a century and deal a major blow to global trading rules now based on countries granting each other what are known as “most favored nation” tariffs unless they sign special trade deals. It would also turn the definition on its head — reciprocity has up until now referred to lower tariffs on goods.

“Trump is essentially trying to create a justification to impose high tariffs on whoever he wants,” said Sam Lowe, a partner at Flint Global in London, where he heads their trade and market access practice.

Fundamental change, Trump advisers said, is what’s needed. “The idea here is historic and it’s really about a revolution in how the international trading system is organized,” Peter Navarro, a senior trade adviser, told Bloomberg Television.  

With his order Trump is also reaching beyond the usual boundaries of his trade fights to how countries collect taxes, apply regulations and standards, and other so-called non-tariff barriers. 

Trump singled out the use of value-added taxes, which he and his advisors argue give exporters from other countries an unfair advantage over U.S. ones. More than 160 countries in the world use VAT or similar consumption levies, according to the International Monetary Fund. The U.S., however, bases its national taxes on income.

In the EU and other economies that use them, Trump and his advisors argue, the ability to claim a VAT rebate when products are exported gives European companies an unfair advantage as imports from the U.S. are charged VAT of 15-20% or higher depending on the member country. 

“A VAT tax is a tariff,” Trump told reporters Thursday. 

Many economists disagree. “Defining a VAT to be a trade barrier isn’t just questionable economics (the VAT is the same on imports and domestic production), it also basically forecloses negotiation, as the EU and others aren’t in a fiscal position to negotiate away its tax base,” Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former US Treasury official, wrote on X. 

In a note to clients, Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist at Capital Economics, said Trump’s plan was likely to have a more damaging impact on the U.S. economy than his previous universal tariff idea.

Just adding the average most-favored nation tariff rate of countries to their VATs would lead to significant reciprocal U.S. tariffs on some of the U.S.’s top trading partners, he wrote. If the U.S. imposes reciprocal tariffs that add VAT rates and MFN tariff rates together, the countries most hit would be India with a rate of 29%, Brazil and the EU. 

Such duties alone, Ashworth wrote, would lead to an increase in the average effective tariffs rate on all U.S. imports from 3% currently to around 20%. It would also lead to a temporary rebound in U.S. inflation to around 4% later this year.

The EU stipulates that countries must apply a VAT rate of no less than 15% on most goods and services, though it leaves decisions on actual levels and exemptions to member states. According to ING calculations, the VAT across the 27-nation bloc averaged 21.5% in 2023.

By targeting VAT the U.S. is relaunching a long-running trade fight. 

The U.S. and Europe have battled over the treatment of VAT and income taxes in global trading rules since the 1960s with the EU challenging multiple mechanisms the U.S. set up in the 1970s and ’80s to offer a similar export rebate on U.S. corporate taxes levied against revenues. The EU eventually won a World Trade Organization challenge to those mechanisms in the 1990s and since then the U.S. has had no similar export rebates. 

Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, said the Trump administration’s view of VAT reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the tax works. VATs don’t discriminate against foreign goods since domestically produced ones face the same taxes in the countries they are sold, she said.

Consumption taxes

“The goal of a value-added tax is to tax domestic consumption,” York said. “There’s no discrimination based on where something was made. It’s just a tax on the stuff that people in a country are buying.”

But Trump’s grievances with other countries go beyond that by targeting regulations and other non-tariff barriers that U.S. goods face overseas. 

“We’re going to look at everything,” Jamieson Greer, who is due to become U.S. Trade Representative, told reporters on Thursday, including what he called “fake” anti-trust regimes. 

The EU has for years targeted U.S. tech giants like Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google for scrutiny in competition investigations that have led to hefty fines. The U.S. has also long complained about how the EU and other countries like Japan regulate food imports such as beef and chicken, as well as other U.S. exports like chemicals and genetically modified crop seeds.

In the memorandum signed Thursday, Trump ordered officials to include in their tariff calculations “any other practice that” they conclude “imposes any unfair limitation on market access or any structural impediment to fair competition with the market economy of the United States.” 

As with many of Trump’s trade actions, optimists believe that they could lead to trade agreements that will avoid the disruptive economic impact of tariffs likely to provoke retaliation by other countries and lead to higher prices and slower growth. 

John Veroneau, a partner at law firm Covington & Burling LLP who served as a senior trade official in the administration of President George W. Bush, said Trump’s latest move represents a significant broadening out of his trade conflicts. 

“He has raised the stakes. This is now a global enterprise,” Veroneau said, calling it a “huge step” away from the global trading rules first laid out in the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 

‘New phase’

The U.S. is signaling “the start of a new phase in global trade” in which the U.S. uses its power not to influence global rules but the bilateral trade in goods, he said. The best hope, Veroneau said, is that the U.S. can negotiate new deals that don’t lead to escalating trade wars over tariffs.

Equities rose in Asia and Europe on Friday, with traders optimistic that the timeline for reciprocal tariffs provided enough room to negotiate. Setser said that shouldn’t last long as investors “will eventually realize that this is a path to real tariff hikes,” he wrote on X. 

Jennifer Hillman, who served as both a senior U.S. trade official and a member of the WTO’s highest court, said the plan laid out by Trump and his advisors would be immensely complex to implement, would likely to lead to chaos and require more funding for border authorities

Interfering in how other countries collect taxes and impose regulations would also inevitably lead to a backlash against the U.S., said Hillman, now a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations.

“We’re just going to make America hated again,” she said. “At some level, for these other countries, it’s just like ‘who are you to tell us that we can’t regulate our own economy?'”