Connect with us

Accounting

Partnership pitfalls under the centralized partnership audit regime

Published

2 years ago

on

Six years of the Centralized Partnership Audit Regime have elucidated a central understanding: the Bipartisan Budget Act provisions present plenty of potential pitfalls for partnerships, partnership representatives and the partners. The BBA creates a fictitious partnership level tax, imbues the partnership representative with authoritarian control, threatens to create conflict between partners and overhauls the partnership examination requiring key decisions at various stages of the examination process. 

BBA examination overview

BBA examinations begin with a Notice of Administrative Proceeding, which is sent only to the partnership representative, who is appointed by the partnership on a timely filed original return for each tax year and charged with the responsibility of representing the partnership in matters involving the Internal Revenue Service. (The partnership representative does not have to be a partner and can be an entity. In the context of an entity representative, the partnership must appoint a representative of the entity – a designated individual – as the point of contact for the IRS.)

Then the IRS will issue a Notice of Preliminary Partnership Examination Changes that gives the PR the ability to raise any disputes with the proposed changes with the IRS Office of Appeals. Next, the IRS will issue a Notice of Proposed Partnership Adjustment. The NOPPA asserts a fictitious partnership-level tax called the imputed underpayment and starts a 270-day clock during which the partnership, working with the individual partners, can request a modification of the imputed underpayment. After the close of that period, the IRS will issue a Final Partnership Adjustment (FPA) that asserts an imputed underpayment (less any adjustments for modifications) and penalties, if applicable. The FPA also starts both a 45-day clock for making a push-out election and a 90-day clock for filing a suit to challenge the IRS determinations. Only the PR acting on behalf of the partnership can bring an action and may do so in the Tax Court or, after making a deposit of the imputed underpayment, penalties, additions to tax and additional amounts, through the U.S. District Court or Court of Federal Claims.

There are a number of pitfalls in the BBA process, but perhaps the most important are those associated with the PR, which replaced the prior tax matters partner (TMP) under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) partnership regime. 

TMP versus PR

Under TEFRA, the TMP, as representative of the partnership, could only bind the non-notice partners, leaving notice partners with options to fight — even to the point of litigation — on their own. A notice partner was any partner in a partnership with 100 or fewer partners. For partnerships larger than that, notice partners were any partners owning 1% or more of the partnership. Partners who owned less than 1% could form a notice group that collectively owned 5% of the partnership (notice group) to obtain notice partner rights.

Under TEFRA, notice partners could file a petition with the U.S. Tax Court if the TMP failed to bring such an action, intervene in any Tax Court settlement, pay their share of any flow-through adjustments and file a claim for refund (and suit for refund). Notice partners were not inherently bound by the decisions of the TMP.

Pitfall 1: The BBA regime eliminates that individualism, imbuing the PR with complete control over the partnership. Under the BBA, notice partners are no more; only the partnership representative can bring a court action, and no partner has a right to intervene in a settlement or litigation. Individual partners no longer have the ability to pay their share and file a suit for refund. The partnership representative has complete authority to bind the partnership, exposing the partnership and the partners.

Modifications: An opportunity for individualism

The modification process offers a glimpse at TEFRA-era individualism. During the 270-day post-NOPPA period, an individual partner can request a modification by filing amended returns for the tax year under audit (and any other affected tax years) to account for their share of the partnership adjustments. The partner must also pay all taxes, penalties and interest associated with the amendments. Once a modification has been made, the imputed underpayment at the partnership level is reduced by the amount allocated to the individual partner. However, the individual partner cannot later file a second amended return to undo the adjustments until or unless a court determines that the partnership-level adjustments were incorrect.

For partnerships, modifications make sense if there is no defense to the adjustments raised by the NOPPA, the modification reduces the effective tax owed by the partners for those that are tax-exempt entities or the long-term strategy involves filing an action in the District Court or Court of Federal Claims. Modifications may help reduce the amount the partnership has to pay to file an action in those courts. For partners that do not trust the PR, this could be the first point of dissension from the partnership because partnerships and partners must work together to facilitate a modification.

Push-out elections

During the 45-day period starting with the issuance of the FPA, the partnership may elect to push out the partnership adjustments to its partners. Push-out elections push the adjustments to the individual partners on a pro-rata basis. Unlike modifications, push-outs do not require consent from the individual partners. 

Push-outs can be beneficial if individual partners have tax attributes that would lower the effective tax rate. For example, for an individual partner with large capital gains or loss carryovers, the adjustment may have a lower tax impact than the maximum individual default rate of 37%. Push-out elections may also be beneficial to partnerships with a large number of disassociated partners. Otherwise, the partnership as a whole is on the hook for the imputed underpayment and may lack the funds to cover that tax, forcing a capital call that may produce mixed results. 

Pitfall 2: Push-out elections require an intensive process that carries administrative burdens. If any mistakes are made in that process, the IRS can void the election. 

Pitfall 3: If the partnership elects to push out the adjustments, the IRS will increase interest on any balance by an additional 2% over the going rates. This could result in increased exposure for the partner.

Pitfall 4: The individual allocations and additional interest could cause inconsistent results among partners. Unlike modifications, push-outs affect every partner. Situations may arise where a push-out helps a partner with a lower effective tax rate but increases out-of-pocket costs for a partner at a 37% effective rate that now has to contend with 2% additional interest.

Pitfall 5: Push-out elections shift responsibility for the adjustment to the partners that make up the partnership in the adjustment year, which is defined as the year in which the adjustment is finalized (the year the FPA is accepted or the year a court decision becomes final). This creates a situation where a partner in the partnership during the year under audit subsequently sells its partnership interest to another taxpayer and avoids liability while sticking the new partner with a liability from a year when they were not even a partner, creating a disconnect between benefits and burdens associated with the adjustments.

This means that each partnership needs to think about the administrative burdens of trying to collect contributions from each partner to pay the tax, the likelihood of a push-out reducing the collective tax by amounts sufficient to offset the additional 2% interest and the possibility that some partners will be worse off with such a decision while others benefit.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Accounting

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Published

17 hours ago

on

September 5, 2026

By

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Corporate accounting departments face an expanded regulatory mandate as mandatory sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting frameworks take full effect internationally. Governed by the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) IFRS S1 and S2 standards, enterprise financial controllers are now legally required to track, verify, and report non-financial data with the same internal controls and auditability as traditional financial statements.

The expansion shifts ESG compliance

This regulatory expansion shifts ESG compliance from marketing departments to corporate accounting offices. Financial managers are now responsible for gathering, consolidating, and verifying carbon emissions metrics, supply chain labor conditions, water usage, and climate risk exposures across multi-tiered corporate structures. These non-financial metrics must be integrated into standardized general ledgers to withstand rigorous third-party audit assurance processes.

To comply with these rigorous reporting mandates, accounting software providers have added dedicated ESG modules designed to aggregate data from IoT sensors, utility platforms, and vendor management systems. Controllers are implementing internal control frameworks—modeled after traditional COSO frameworks—to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of sustainability disclosures, protecting organizations against greenwashing penalties and litigation risks.

The transition requires significant cross-functional collaboration between accounting teams, legal counsel, and operational directors. Accounting professionals are expanding their technical expertise beyond financial ledgers to master carbon accounting methodologies, lifecycle assessment standards, and non-financial data governance protocols, fundamentally expanding the role of the modern corporate accountant.

Why This Information Matters
Mandatory ESG disclosures require companies to treat environmental and social metrics as audited financial records. Executives, accountants, and board members must institute formal tracking and assurance processes to satisfy legal mandates, maintain investor confidence, and mitigate regulatory non-compliance risks.

Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

2 weeks ago

on

August 25, 2026

By

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

3 weeks ago

on

August 15, 2026

By

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

Trending