Connect with us

Accounting

State child tax credits held down kids poverty rates, study shows

Published

on

The dozen U.S. states that implemented a refundable child tax credit program in the wake of the pandemic held down child poverty rates relative to states that didn’t act, according to an analysis by Columbia University’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy.

The research evaluated how many children were projected to be lifted out of poverty because of the state initiatives, and how that compared with the impact from a one-year Covid-era federal program that expired at the end of 2021.

Many of the state-level credits were set in place or expanded as it became clear Congress wouldn’t quickly come to a consensus on continuing with the enlarged federal benefit. The state credits are much smaller in size, have stricter income limits than the federal credits and often exclude older children.

Still, the analysis suggests they helped mitigate the loss of expanded federal aid for many families. In a comparable year, Minnesota’s credit of as much as $1,750 per child up to age 17 would move 13,000 children out of poverty – nearly half of the estimated 31,000 if the federal credit had remained in place. Minnesota provides an added tax break for older children.

Vermont’s program also had a notable impact, while California and Illinois would move a fraction of kids out of poverty compared with the federal credit, according to the data, which was compiled for Bloomberg News.

“This is going to have a smaller effect than you might expect for the federal policy, but there are families that are still benefiting under this,” said Ryan Vinh, a research analyst at the Columbia CPSP. “Like families with young children that are in deep poverty, you might see them lifted out of deep poverty, which we would define as being below half of the poverty line.”

The study offers some hindsight into various initiatives now that Republicans have included a federal child tax credit of as much as $2,200 in their recently enacted fiscal package — saying the expansion will do more to help working families. The new credit isn’t fully refundable, meaning low-income families who owe little or nothing in taxes to the government generally wouldn’t get the higher value, according to an analysis from the Yale Budget Lab.

Back in 2021, the fully refundable credit of up to $3,600 provided in the “American rescue plan” helped bring child poverty rates to a record low of 5.2%. However, the scope of the credit made it costly for the federal government.

Poverty surge

After it expired, 12 states created or expanded their own versions of a refundable credit. Five other states have implemented nonrefundable credits.

National child poverty surged back up after the federal program ended. The rate stood at 13.7% in 2023, according to the latest data available from the Census Bureau, which uses varying income thresholds depending on family size and composition for its definition. Last year, one measure of the poverty level for a household with two adults and two children was roughly $39,000. 

Columbia University’s CPSP has compiled a more timely gauge, using a different method. Their tracker showed some 22.5% of children were living in poverty as of December, up from 14.7% during the same month four years ago.

The CPSP data showed that Colorado’s program was projected to move the most children out of poverty compared to the “American Rescue Plan” credit — 36,000 versus the 41,000 lifted by the federal program if it had remained in place. But that was partially due to the fact that the state offers an additional tax break for families on top of the child tax credit in years when the state has a surplus of revenue.

‘Lifesaver’ aid

Other states like Massachusetts, which offers a much smaller credit up to $440 per child who is younger than 13, had some impact, but were projected to have moved fewer children out of poverty.

Huong Vu, a 40-year old Massachusetts resident, said the monthly payments from the 2021 expanded credit were a “lifesaver” for her family, which includes her husband and daughters now aged 12 and 13. It allowed her family to cover more than just basic needs when Vu’s job was made part-time during the pandemic.

Since then, the Massachusetts credit implemented in 2023 has helped Vu’s family amid higher prices for everyday expenses, including groceries and gas. It’s also enabled sending her children to summer and sports programs they otherwise wouldn’t be able to join.

President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” boosted the federal credit for tax filers to up to $2,200 per eligible child, which will be adjusted annually for inflation starting in 2026. That’s up from the $2,000 maximum temporarily enacted in the 2017 tax law that would have been halved at the end of 2025.

Of the total, $1,700 will be refundable for the 2025 tax year, which is the amount that can be received if the credit exceeds the amount of taxes owed.

Earlier this year, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri proposed increasing the credit to up to $5,000 per child while allowing parents to receive the credit in monthly checks, similar to the pandemic-era version. His plan also would have applied the credit to payroll taxes, which could have increased the benefit for some low-income households. 

Hawley said while the new expansion is “better than nothing” and praised it for being indexed to inflation, Republicans will need to do more for working families, including another child tax credit expansion in a future bill.

“It’s one of the best ways to get tax relief to working people,” Hawley said.

Julie Cai, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a progressive think tank, said a more substantial expansion of the child tax credit could benefit the hardest-hit families.

“Within a year, a lot of people might lose jobs or have a relatively small spell of unemployment,” Cai said. “How we can provide measures to buffer the type of negative consequences from their unemployment spell will be crucial.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

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

Published

on

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

on

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

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

on

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Trending