The U.S. Government Accountability Office created a list of questions for policymakers’ oversight of the energy tax expenditures in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

The report, published today, describes selected features and effective dates of each IRA energy tax expenditure, the implementation status and data of each expenditure as of January 2025, and questions to aid the oversight of the expenditures.

The 21 energy-related tax expenditures, which includes 20 credits and one deduction, cover a range of subjects such as clean vehicles, clean energy infrastructure, electricity generation and energy efficient buildings. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the expenditures may result in at least $200 billion less in revenue collected between 2022 and 2031. 

The GAO has long recommended greater scrutiny of tax expenditures. For example, in 2005, it recommended that the Office of Management and Budget produce a framework for reviewing the performance of tax expenditures.

“However, as of January 2025, the recommendation has not been implemented, limiting policymakers’ ability to regularly review their effectiveness,” the GAO wrote in its report. “Periodic reviews could help determine how well specific tax expenditures work to achieve their goals and how their benefits and costs compare to those of direct spending programs with similar goals. Since the IRA tax expenditures represent a substantial federal commitment, oversight questions can help provide useful scrutiny.”

The questions the GAO proposed regard evaluating effectiveness: Have the relevant agencies identified which tax expenditures contribute to their agency goals? What information are agencies reporting on the use and effects of the tax expenditure and how does that information relate to goals and measures? And what roles do agencies, including the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget, have in overseeing the evaluation of the expenditure?

Other questions regard assessing administration: What have agencies done to minimize the burden associated with planning, recordkeeping, reporting and other compliance costs for taxpayers? What policies and processes does the IRS use to identify tax expenditure fraud risk? And what challenges, if any, have responsible agencies experienced in coordinating the implementation or administration of the expenditure? 

Enjoy complimentary access to top ideas and insights — selected by our editors.

Public accounting is a growing profession. The growth from 2015 to 2025 in revenues was 125% and in total personnel 113%. These are real numbers and vitiate what the naysayers claim about the doom and gloom of the profession.

Last week I provided an analysis of the Top 100 numbers that appeared in the March 2025 issue. What I did was actually simple and was typical of what I do for clients and teach my students. Rather than accepting the aggregate numbers, I look beneath them. In this situation I did a few things. I broke the total amounts into three groups based on revenues and used that to analyze the relative performance of the three groups, and I think I came up with some reasonable conclusions. You can look at last week’s issue to see what they were.

This week I looked at the changes over the last 10 years and will discuss some of my observations here. The revenue growth was impressive, but it came primarily from the group of 12 and then the other 84, with the lowest percentage increase from the Big Four. Also the growth of employees was the lowest for the Big Four and greatest for the group of 12. To see what this means, I looked at the revenue per employee. The Big Four’s revenue per employee was virtually flat, indicating no growth, which I translate as stagnant efficiency or effectiveness. That would seem to retard profit growth. Running a business with a growing top line and presumably a large growth in technology usage but flat revenues per employee does not make sense. 

However, there was significant growth in revenues per employee in the other groups. I did not use percentages, but dollars of growth. Both of the other groups had similar growth of about $43,000 annual revenue per employee. Looking at the overall total of $13,000 per employee does not provide any insights other than macro growth for the Top 100. If I were managing a Big Four firm, I would seriously look at this. I did not look at each of the Big Four separately. I could have but do not want to make a career out of this as my aim is to provide insights and comparative data to readers. 

Another thing I want to point out is a reiteration of what I wrote last week about the MAS grouping of the Group of 12 being closer to the remaining 84 than the Big Four. Looking at this from 2015 indicates that the MAS group grew similarly to the two smaller groups, while the Big Four grew significantly. Also the A&A for all three declined as a percentage of revenues, while the taxes grew for the group of 12.

I also want to point out that using aggregate data doesn’t usually provide the information clients need. And my “teaching” self wants to inject a lesson here that what I did here can be done for every one of your clients. I do it, and so can you.

A final observation. Last week I provided the average revenues and staffing of the bottom five firms. That was 64.5 million revenues and 312 total employees. Ten years ago, these were $33.2 million and 201 total employees. Revenues almost doubled and headcount grew 50%. This indicates growth with much more efficiency and effectiveness or better pricing. The revenue growth was below each of the three groups, but the lower headcount growth is very impressive. Better numbers could be obtained by segmenting into more groups. Do that if you want. This is a column for accountants with the purpose of providing a method of looking at data more effectively. When I advise my clients, I work out the right data to advise them with. One suggestion for those running an accounting practice in the Top 100 is to look at the five firms above and below you and see how you are doing. Then look further above and consider setting that as a goal.

There is a lot more to do. There always is a lot more to do. Use this and last week’s charts and the Top 100 list and figure out what works for you. Use my process to look beyond the primary chart and come up with helpful observations. And this process should be applied to your business clients.

Do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] with your practice management questions or about engagements you might not be able to perform. 

A key House committee advanced President Donald Trump’s giant tax and spending package after Republican hardliners won agreement from party leaders to speed up cuts to Medicaid health coverage.

The vote in the House Budget Committee paves the way for passage of the legislation as soon as Thursday, House Republican leadership aides said Monday. 

The late Sunday night committee vote followed a weekend of negotiations with four ultraconservatives on the panel who on Friday joined with Democrats to reject the legislation. Those hardliners instead abstained on Sunday and voted present, allowing the bill to advance.

Representative Chip Roy of Texas, one of the four hardliners, said party leaders agreed to move up Medicaid work requirements expected to kick millions of beneficiaries off the health coverage program and more quickly phase out clean energy tax breaks.

But Roy still expressed dissatisfaction, saying the measure “does not yet meet the moment.” Roy and the House Freedom Caucus said in posts on X they are hoping to win additional cuts before the bill comes up for a vote on the House floor.

Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington said he didn’t know what changes the party leaders had agreed to make. The changes will be added later, before the legislation is voted on by the full House.

House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters “there’s a lot more work to do” on the tax bill but said he would push on Medicaid work requirements “to make it happen sooner, as soon as possible.” 

On Monday, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise told CNBC that work requirements would start in 2027, two years earlier than the timeframe in the draft legislation. But the Republican leadership staff later said that the date has not yet been settled.

Republicans broadly agree about imposing work requirements on Medicaid, the leadership aides told reporters. The discussion is around the start date, the people said. Republicans are also continuing to discuss the cap on the state and local tax deduction and when clean energy credits will phase out, they said.

There is strong support among Republicans for the tax cuts at the core of the package, providing an impetus to work out political differences.

But the House panel’s initial rejection of the legislation and the two-day impasse was an embarrassing setback for Republican leaders on their top legislative priority, highlighting ferocious infighting among party factions over components of the sprawling multi-trillion dollar fiscal package.

Trump fulminated against the ultraconservatives on social media Friday after they blocked the legislation, accusing them of “grandstanding” demands.

“It’s essential that every Republican in the House and the Senate unites behind President Trump and passes this popular and essential legislative package,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday morning.

She added that Trump plans to be “very engaged” as the bill moves through Congress and will likely call members directly if they are waffling on their support for the bill.

More turbulence may lay ahead as the legislation proceeds toward a vote by the full House and then consideration in the Senate, where the deeper Medicaid cuts the hardliners demanded as well as other provisions face scrutiny, if not outright opposition.

Republicans from high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey and California have threatened to defeat the legislation unless they get a higher limit on the federal income tax deduction for state and local taxes. 

Deficit worries and long-term interest rates approaching 5% have enhanced a campaign by the party’s right flank to seek deeper cuts to government spending. Those concerns were highlighted on Friday evening when Moody’s lowered the U.S. credit rating to Aa1 from Aaa.

If the House does pass a version of their bill, more obstacles await in the Senate.

Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, has said he would not vote for the House measure’s cuts to Medicaid benefits and points to cutting prescription drug prices as a better way to gain savings.

The bill’s Medicaid cuts could also face skepticism from moderate Republicans, including Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — who helped defeat Trump’s effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017. 

Still other senators, including Thom Tillis of North Carolina, whose state has billions in green energy projects already built or in the works, want a more gradual phase-out of Biden administration clean-energy tax incentives.

As initially unveiled by House Republicans, many clean energy credits would begin to phase out in 2029.

The tax breaks, which include incentives for wind and solar power, nuclear power and other sources of clean energy, have been ripe targets for lawmakers looking to offset the cost of extending Trump’s cuts.

Others, like the tax credit for electric vehicles, would in most cases phase out starting at the end of 2025.