Accounting
PCAOB proposes far-reaching requirements for audit firm reporting
Published
1 year agoon

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board voted to propose an extensive set of new reporting requirements to impose on auditing firms during a meeting Tuesday, even as the auditing overseer is facing
The new requirements come in the form of two related proposals, one on firm and engagement metrics and the other on firm reporting. The
They include information about firms’ overall audit practice, such as how partners’ quality performance ratings affect their compensation, and information about individual engagements, for example the time incurred by partners and managers on the engagement team related to areas of significant risks, critical accounting policies and practices, and critical accounting estimates.

“Collectively, these metrics would help investors make more informed decisions about how they invest their money, and they would provide audit committees with consistent data to analyze and compare as they are selecting and monitoring audit firms, ” said the PCAOB chair, Erica Williams, in a statement during Tuesday’s open meeting. “Firms could use these standardized metrics about themselves and their peers to assist in designing, implementing, monitoring and remediating their systems of quality control.”
She acknowledged that the PCAOB could also benefit from having such information on hand in a consistent, comparable format for use in its inspections program and standard-setting initiatives.
The proposal, if adopted, would require PCAOB-registered firms that audit one or more accelerated filers or large accelerated filers to publicly report specified metrics relating to such audits and their audit practice.
The proposal envisions standardized firm- and engagement-level metrics to create a data set for investors and other stakeholders for analysis and comparison. The proposed metrics cover:
- Partner and manager involvement;
- Workload;
- Audit resources;
- Experience of audit personnel;
- Industry experience of audit personnel;
- Retention and tenure;
- Audit hours and risk areas (engagement-level only);
- Allocation of audit hours;
- Quality performance ratings and compensation (firm-level only);
- Audit firms’ internal monitoring; and,
- Restatement history (firm-level only).
The proposal would require reporting of firm-level metrics annually on a new Form FM, for firms that serve as the lead auditor for at least one accelerated filer or large accelerated filer. Reporting of engagement-level metrics for audits of accelerated filers and large accelerated filers would be done on a revised Form AP, which would be renamed “Audit Participants and Metrics.” The proposal would allow, but not require, limited narrative disclosures on both Form FM and Form AP to provide context and explanation for the required metrics.
Firm reporting proposal
The other proposal, on
“Fee reporting would help investors, audit committees and other stakeholders better understand how a firm’s audit practice fits into its overall business and the incentives that may influence resource allocation within the firms,” said Williams.
The largest registered firms would also need to confidentially submit their financial statements to the PCAOB.
“These firms play an essential role in our capital markets and overall economy,” said Williams. “Their financial stability impacts their ability to invest in resources necessary to ensure quality audits and to withstand various financial events.”
Another area of disclosure involves audit firm governance information. The proposal would require all PCAOB-registered firms to report more public information about their leadership, legal structure, ownership and other governance information, including information on the structures and policies that would govern a change in the form of the organization.
The PCAOB also wants to find out more information about firm networks, such as the Big Four. The proposal would require a more detailed public description of firms’ network arrangements, to provide more insight about the accountability and oversight structure the firm is subject to, in addition to the resources the firm has available to devote to its audit work.
In addition, the PCAOB wants a shorter timeline on special reporting of events such as whether a firm is the subject of a lawsuit or regulatory action. The proposal would shorten the timeframe for special reporting from 30 days to 14 days, or more promptly as warranted. Some of the information would need to be made available to investors, audit committees, and the PCAOB inspection and investigation staff in a timelier manner.
Firms would also need to provide more detailed information about any financial issues they are facing, as well as upcoming mergers, acquisitions and reorganizations.
“In addition to the existing special reporting requirements, the proposal would add a new confidential special reporting requirement for events material to a firm’s organization, operations, liquidity or financial resources, or provision of audit services,” said Williams. “These events have the potential to significantly impact audit quality and investor protection, yet they are not covered under the current standard. For example, the additional requirement might include a determination that there is substantial doubt about the firm’s ability to continue as a going concern, or a planned or anticipated acquisition of the firm, change in control, or restructuring.”
Cybersecurity issues would also need to be disclosed to the PCAOB.
“Cybersecurity threats are among the greatest risks to many businesses in today’s world, and audit firms are particularly attractive targets,” said Williams. “The proposal would require public reporting of a brief description of the firm’s policies and procedures, if any, to identify and manage cybersecurity risks, and confidential reporting of significant cybersecurity events to the PCAOB within five business days.”
The
The board is proposing to enhance the required reporting of information by registered firms on its public
- Financial information: Under the proposal, all registered firms would report additional fee information on the public annual report form. The largest registered firms would also be required to confidentially submit financial statements annually to the PCAOB.
- Audit firm governance information: The proposal would require all registered firms to report on the public annual report form additional information regarding their leadership, legal structure, ownership and other governance information, including information that would govern a change in the form of the organization.
- Network information: The proposal would require on the public annual firm report a more detailed description of any network arrangement to which a registered firm is subject, including describing the legal and ownership structure of the network, network-related financial obligations, information-sharing arrangements between the network and registered firm, and network governing boards or individuals to which the registered firm is accountable.
- Special reporting: The proposal would shorten the timeframe for all reporting on the special reporting form from 30 days to 14 days (or more promptly as warranted) and implement a new confidential special reporting requirement for events material to a firm’s organization, operations, liquidity or financial resource, or provision of audit services.
- Cybersecurity: The proposal would require confidential reporting on the special reporting form of significant cybersecurity events within five business days and periodic public reporting of a brief description of the firm’s policies and procedures, if any, to identify and manage cybersecurity risks.
Separately, the proposal includes amendments to facilitate a provision under the QC 1000 proposal that would require firms to report their revised quality control policies and procedures if QC 1000 were to be adopted.
The board’s thoughts
PCAOB board member Christina Ho voted in support of the firm and engagement metrics proposal but against the firm reporting proposal. While she voiced cautious support of the firm and engagement metrics proposal, she also had some questions about it.
“The proposal does not articulate clearly what the PCAOB is going to do with all this information,” said Ho. “We are proposing to mandate that firms submit this information by the respective due dates, but what are the PCAOB’s due dates to publish? Will we analyze the information we collect and share our analysis with the public?”
She was more critical of the firm reporting proposal.
“I am profoundly worried that the board’s apparent zeal to impose, in each new proposed standard or rule, new burdens on firms, without sufficient tailoring and without quantifying the estimated burdens, may end up breaking the public company auditing profession’s back, particularly for small firms,” said Ho. “If we ‘break’ the profession in the name of investor protection, are we really protecting investors?”
Another board member, George Botic, supported the firm and engagement metrics proposal.
“My consideration of this proposal has led me to believe that the ultimate value of many of the proposed metrics would likely be realized over a longer time horizon,” he said. “Trends across and within both firms and engagements may emerge. Such trends could provide not only information for the acquirors of audit services and the users of financial statements, but also direction to the academic community about potential research areas, which in turn could provide further insights into the overall audit market and also assist our work.”
He also voted in support of the firm reporting proposal.
“As part of our ongoing oversight activities, we have received important information about firms’ operations on a voluntary ad-hoc basis in which firms may call and ‘alert’ various PCAOB staff of pending matters or firm actions,” said Botic. “Having been the recipient of many of these voluntary calls, I can confirm how helpful this information was. It allowed the staff to be more informed and able to respond and ask further probing questions and perform other oversight procedures, as warranted. This proposal takes the insights gained from those interactions and standardizes them to allow for comparable and timely collection that facilitates access and efficient sharing with offices and staff across the PCAOB.”
The PCAOB is asking for comments on both proposals by June 7 and noted that the basic framework for its annual and special reporting requirements has not been substantively reevaluated since its adoption in 2008.
Separately on Tuesday, the PCAOB announced a
You may like

Share and share alike; fleecing the flock; United they fall; and other highlights of recent tax cases.
Shreveport, Louisiana: Tax preparer Sharhonda Law, 39, of Haughton, Louisiana, has been sentenced to 20 months in prison, to be followed by a year of supervised release, for tax fraud.
She owned and operated Law’s Tax Service, where she was the sole preparer. Law prepared and filed a client’s 2019 federal return that included a fraudulent Schedule F that claimed the client had farming income and had incurred farming expenses and was due a refund. In fact, the client owed taxes for that year. Investigation also showed that Law’s client did not have a farm, nor did they tell Law they owned or operated a farm and had never provided Law with any of the farming-related income or expenses on the Schedule F.
Law pleaded guilty in November to one count of aiding and assisting in making and subscribing a false return.
She made similar misrepresentations on six other returns for clients and falsified her own income on two of her personal returns; she also failed to file returns for other years. The total criminal tax loss was $123,455, which Law was ordered to pay in restitution.
Evansville, Indiana: Marcie Jean Doty, operations manager for a property management business, has been sentenced to five years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, after pleading guilty to wire fraud, failure to file returns and filing false returns.
Between May 2017 and June 2022, Doty stole some $1,803,466.38 from her employer via unauthorized checks and ACH transfers. She executed 99 unauthorized transfers, totaling $503,151.59, and wrote 279 unauthorized checks to herself, totaling $1,300,314.79. The funds were transferred from her employer’s bank accounts to her personal ones. Doty entered false information in the business accounting software, representing that the checks were written to her employer instead of herself.
In January 2017, Doty agreed to purchase a 25% equity share in her employer’s business. Doty used some of the money she stole via the scheme to make payments towards her purchase of the share.
For tax years 2018 through 2020, Doty didn’t report the income derived from her scheme, failing to report some $786,280.70. She also didn’t file returns for tax years 2021 and 2022, failing to report some $1,006,983.84 in income.
She has been ordered to pay $2,517,343.05 in restitution.
Crofton, Kentucky: Marvin Upton has been sentenced to two years and three months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, for fraud and tax offenses.
Upton, until recently the pastor at local Crofton Pentecostal Church, was sentenced for three counts of bank fraud and three counts of filing false returns. From 2013 to 2016, Upton defrauded one of his elderly parishioners, who suffered from dementia. During that same time, Upton submitted multiple false returns that omitted income from the fraud.
Jacksonville, Florida: Exec Daniel Tharp has pleaded guilty to failure to pay taxes.
Tharp was managing director for Hangar X Holdings LLC, where he had the responsibility to collect and account for the company’s trust fund taxes from employees’ pay. From October 2014 through December 2019, the company paid wages to employees and withheld these, but Tharp didn’t pay the money to the IRS. In total, he caused the company to fail to pay over $1.2 million in such taxes.
He faces a maximum of five years in prison.

Detroit: A federal court in Michigan has issued an injunction against tax preparers Alicia Bishop and Tenisha Green, barring them from preparing federal returns for others.
The court previously barred Alicia Qualls, Michael Turner and Constance Stewart from preparing federal returns for others and previously barred the business for which all of the preparers worked, United Tax Team Inc., and United Tax Team’s incorporator, Glen Hurst, from preparing federal returns for others.
Hurst, United Tax Team, Qualls, Turner and Stewart consented to the judgments.
According to the complaint, Hurst incorporated United Tax Team in 2016, and was its sole shareholder and corporate officer. Hurst hired the return preparers — including Qualls, Bishop, Green, Turner and Stewart — who worked at United locations in the Detroit area and prepared returns for clients that included false information not provided by clients.
The complaint alleges that Qualls, Bishop, Green, Turner and Stewart each repeatedly placed false or incorrect items, deductions, exemptions or statuses on returns without clients’ knowledge, including, in various cases, fabricated Schedule C businesses; fabricated education expenses; improperly claimed pandemic relief tax credits; improperly claimed head of household status; and fictitious child and dependent care expenses.
Akron, Ohio: Tax preparer Mustafa Ayoub Diab, 41, of Ravenna, Ohio, has been convicted of orchestrating a financial conspiracy that defrauded the U.S. government of pandemic benefits.
Diab was found guilty on 12 counts of theft of government funds, 12 counts of bank fraud, 11 of wire fraud, six of aggravated ID theft and one count each of conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud and to launder monetary instruments.
Diab owned and operated a tax prep business where he and his co-conspirator, Elizabeth Lorraine Robinson, 33, also of Ravenna, developed a scheme to take advantage of the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Program and the Paycheck Protection Program. From around June 2020 to August 2021, Diab submitted fraudulent applications for pandemic unemployment benefits and small-business assistance for many of his tax prep business clients.
Without their knowledge, he lied about their employment or about their being small-business owners. Investigators also discovered that Diab opened bank accounts in his clients’ names to receive the benefit funds via direct deposit, which the clients did not have access to, along with accounts in the names of Robinson and Diab’s sister. When the relief money was deposited into these accounts, he withdrew the funds in cash for his personal use, buying real estate and cars and taking international trips.
Diab submitted fraudulent applications in the names of nearly 80 victims, causing the federal government to pay out more than $1.2 million in pandemic benefits that were deposited into the various bank accounts that Diab controlled.
Sentencing is July 28. He faces up to 30 years in prison.
Robinson previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy, wire fraud, bank fraud and theft of government funds; she awaits sentencing and also faces up to 30 years in prison.
Columbus, Ohio: A federal court has permanently enjoined tax preparer Michael Craig from preparing returns for others and from owning or operating any prep business.
Craig, both individually and d.b.a. Craig’s Tax Service, consented to entry of the injunction.
According to the complaint, many tax returns that Craig prepared made false and fraudulent claims, including losses for fictitious Schedule C businesses; claiming costs of goods sold for types of businesses that cannot claim these costs and without supporting documentation; inventing or inflating expenses for otherwise legitimate Schedule C businesses; and taking deductions for both cash and non-cash charitable deductions that are either exaggerated or fabricated.
According to the complaint, the IRS estimated a tax loss of more than $3.1 million in 2022 alone.
Craig must send notice of the injunction to each person for whom he prepared federal returns or refund claims after Jan. 1, 2022.
Accounting
IRS proposes to end penalties on basis-shifting transactions
Published
13 hours agoon
April 17, 2025
The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service are planning to withdraw regulations that labeled basis-shifting transactions among partnerships and related parties as “transactions of interest” akin to tax shelters and stop imposing penalties on them.
In
The notice provides immediate relief from penalties under Section 6707A(a) to participants in transactions identified as transactions of interest in the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations that are required to file disclosure statements under Section 6011, and (ii) penalties under Sections 6707(a) and 6708 for material advisors to transactions identified as transactions of interest in the basis-shifting regulations that are required to file disclosure statements under § 6111 and maintain lists under Section 6112.
The notice also withdraws Notice 2024-54, 2024-28 I.R.B. 24 (Basis Shifting Notice), which describes certain proposed regulations that the Treasury Department and the IRS intended to issue addressing partnership related-party basis-shifting transactions.
The
The IRS and the Treasury acknowledged in Thursday’s notice that it had heard similar objections. “Taxpayers and their material advisors have criticized the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations as imposing complex, burdensome, and retroactive disclosure obligations on many ordinary-course and tax-compliant business activities, creating costly compliance obligations and uncertainty for businesses,” said the notice.
It cited an
Last June, former IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel announced a
“Our announcement signals the IRS is accelerating our work in the partnership arena, an arena that has been overlooked for more than a decade with our declining resources,” said Werfel during a press conference last year. “We’re concerned tax abuse is growing in this space, and it’s time to address that. So we are building teams and adding expertise inside the agency so we can reverse these long-term compliance declines.”
Using complex maneuvers, high-income taxpayers and corporations would strip the basis from the assets they owned where the basis was not generating tax benefits and then move the basis to assets they owned where it would generate tax benefits without causing any meaningful change to the economics of their businesses. The basis-shifting transactions would enable closely related parties to avoid paying taxes. The Treasury estimated last year that the transactions could potentially cost taxpayers more than $50 billion over a 10-year period.
“For example, a partnership might shift tax basis from a property that does not generate tax deductions, such as stocks or land, to property where it does, like equipment,” said former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyemo during the same press conference. “Businesses have also used these techniques to depreciate the same asset over and over again.”
Congress has since removed much of the extra funding from the Inflation Reduction Act that was being used to scrutinize such transactions, and the IRS has been
Accounting
Tax-busting ETF-share class filing updates keep piling up
Published
14 hours agoon
April 17, 2025
Optimism is building that a
This week, at least seven firms including JPMorgan and Pacific Investment Management Co. filed amendments to their applications to create funds that have both ETF and mutual fund share classes. The filings update initial applications — some of which sat idle for months — with more details about the fund structure, and suggest the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has engaged in constructive discussions with a growing number of applicants, according to industry lawyers.
“The SEC signaling is clear. These amendments really constitute the SEC prioritizing ETF share class relief,” said Aisha Hunt, a principal at Kelley Hunt law firm, which is working with F/m Investments on its application.
The latest round of filings, which also include Charles Schwab and T. Rowe Price, are serving as yet another sign that the SEC is fast-tracking its decision process on multi-share class funds, after F/m Investments and Dimensional Fund Advisors filed amendments
Brian Murphy, a partner at Stradley Ronon, the firm handling DFA’s filing, said other fund managers are receiving feedback and amending applications.
“We understand that the SEC staff is telling other asset managers to follow the DFA model as well,” said Murphy, who is also a former Vanguard lawyer and SEC counsel.
At stake is a novel fund model where one share class of a mutual fund would be exchange-traded. It was
After Vanguard’s patent on the design expired in 2023, over 50 other asset managers
According to Hunt, the regulator has signaled that it will first approve a small subset of the applicants.
‘Work to be done’
To be sure, an approval doesn’t mean that an issuer will be able to immediately begin using the fund blueprint. Because ETFs trade during market hours, they require different infrastructure than mutual funds, so firms that currently only have the latter structure will need to hire staff and form relationships with ETF market makers before they implement the dual-share class model.
“Dimensional has sort of set the template for what that language looks like in the context of these filings. And by extension cleared the way for approval, which feels imminent now,” said Morningstar Inc.’s Ben Johnson. “But then once we arrive at approval, there’s still going to be work to be done.”
Mutual fund firms will need to prepare for shareholders who want to convert, tax-free, into the ETF share class, which would require some “plumbing” and structural changes, said Johnson.
Another point to consider is that mutual funds that have significant outflows may not be ripe for ETF share classes, as that could result in a tax hit, according to research from Bloomberg Intelligence. In 2009, a Vanguard multishare class fund was hit with a 14% capital-gains distribution after a massive shareholder redeemed its shares in the fund. Fund outflows can bring about a tax event when a mutual fund has to sell underlying holdings to meet redemptions.
Mutual funds have largely bled assets in recent years as ETFs have grown in popularity. As a result, legacy asset managers have found themselves battling for a slice of the increasingly saturated ETF market, which now boasts over 4,000 U.S.-listed ETFs. SEC approval of the dual-share design could open the floodgates to

Where ‘Made in China 2025’ missed the mark

Tax Fraud Blotter: Reaping and sowing

IRS proposes to end penalties on basis-shifting transactions

New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations

The Essential Practice of Bank and Credit Card Statement Reconciliation

Are American progressives making themselves sad?
Trending
-
Personal Finance1 week ago
Student loan changes likely coming under Trump
-
Accounting7 days ago
Trump’s tariff shift has markets, industry groups panicked
-
Personal Finance1 week ago
Social Security updates anti-fraud measures for benefit claims
-
Personal Finance1 week ago
Majority of Americans are financially stressed from tariff turmoil: CNBC survey
-
Personal Finance1 week ago
Social Security COLA projected to be lower in 2026. Tariffs may change that
-
Economics1 week ago
Trump’s triple-digit tariff essentially cuts off most trade with China, says economist
-
Economics1 week ago
Trump’s tariff blitz faces strong legal challenges
-
Finance7 days ago
Stocks making the biggest moves midday: Frontier Group, JPMorgan, Apple, Stellantis, BlackRock and more