Connect with us

Accounting

Stop trying to engage your employees

Published

on

Enough already. Stop trying to engage your employees. Firm leaders can’t do anything to “engage” them if they don’t want to or know how to engage themselves. The only thing leaders can do is to create an engaging environment and then equip employees to connect their values and motivational drivers to the firm’s vision and values. This is how to create engaged employees.

Nurturing employee engagement

Every professional aspires to make a meaningful impact through their work. The drive to learn, grow and achieve is the foundation of a fulfilling career. The professionals in your firm, particularly the younger and aspiring workforce, are no different. They seek opportunities to reach their potential, and it’s the firm’s responsibility to provide the resources, experiences and guidance that enable them to thrive.

Employee engagement is a critical indicator of success in this regard. Engaged employees exhibit higher productivity, job satisfaction and retention rates — outcomes well-documented in research. Consequently, many organizations now employ engagement surveys as a standard practice.

Despite this focus, Gallup reports a troubling trend: employee engagement has steadily declined from a peak of 36% in 2020 to 30% in early 2024. This drop has coincided with reduced productivity and increased dissatisfaction, giving rise to concepts like “quiet quitting.”

To address this, leaders must move beyond surface-level initiatives such as expanded benefits or flexible schedules. They must answer a more fundamental question: How can we create sustainable engagement that aligns individual aspirations with organizational goals?

Beyond basic engagement

Engagement is not an incidental outcome — it requires intentional effort. Leaders must align employees’ personal goals with the organization’s vision and values, fostering a dynamic where employees pursue meaningful aspirations while the firm reaps the benefits of their enthusiasm and dedication.

While perks like new titles or remote work options may provide short-term morale boosts, they rarely address the deeper needs that sustain engagement. To make a lasting impact, firms must focus on cultivating a sense of fulfillment in their workforce.

The changing workforce

Supporting today’s workforce presents unique challenges. Traditional development methods often fall short in resonating with younger employees, many of whom were raised in environments that emphasized structured support and consistent encouragement.

Consider an employee like Johnnie. Throughout his upbringing, Johnnie’s success was closely supported — coaches helped him excel in sports, tutors guided him in academics, and extracurricular lessons nurtured his talents. These efforts demonstrated care and reinforced his belief that external support is often necessary for success.

As Johnnie enters the workforce, he brings this expectation with him, asking: Does my firm care enough about my success to provide the same level of support? This is one reason why younger employees tend to be more open to professional training and coaching than previous generations. In fact, forward-thinking firms are responding by incorporating coaching into benefits packages, enhancing their ability to attract and retain top talent.

However, challenges extend beyond providing support expectations. Prolonged screen time has left many younger employees with underdeveloped social skills and shorter attention spans. They may struggle to navigate workplace dynamics effectively or maintain focus on tasks that don’t immediately engage them.

This dual challenge — reliance on structured support and a diminished capacity for sustained attention — complicates efforts to foster engagement. Young employees often expect rapid advancement and recognition; without it, they may quit and leave; or worse, quit and stay.

Teaching self-engagement

While leaders play a critical role in fostering an engaging environment, employees must also learn to engage themselves. Engagement is a shared responsibility: organizations provide opportunities, but employees must take the initiative to leverage them.

Leaders can support this by helping employees uncover their intrinsic drivers. What motivates them? What are their priorities? Too often, employees lack clarity about their own goals, so they default to requests for raises or promotions that fail to address their deeper aspirations.

Designing inspiring career paths

The study of motivation dates back to ancient philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle and continues to evolve today. Modern research highlights four fundamental drives that influence engagement in the workplace. These drivers are universal yet unique to each individual in terms of priority and intensity.

Addressing these drives requires deliberate effort:

  1. The drive to learn. Employees seek mastery and growth. They want to build both technical and professional skills.

    • Are managers framing assignments as opportunities for development?
    • Are employees receiving constructive feedback and recognition for their progress?
    • Do they view their work as stepping stones toward their goals?
  2. The drive to achieve. Employees need autonomy and meaningful accomplishments that resonate with their personal values.

    • Are employees given ownership of their projects and held accountable for them?
    • Are managers aware of what drives individual employees and helping them align their work accordingly?
    • Is there clarity about what achievement and success look like?
  3. The drive to bond. Humans are social beings who thrive on connection. Employees want to feel valued and part of a team.

    • Are managers fostering a culture of collaboration and mutual respect?
    • Do employees feel appreciated by their peers and leaders?
    • Are employees asked about how connected they feel to the team?
  4. The drive to pursue purpose: Employees want to align their work with a greater sense of meaning.

    • Are leaders helping employees connect their work to the organization’s mission and vision?
    • Are employees able to see how their work contributes to their personal and professional purpose?
    • Do they believe they are a part of something larger and more meaningful that makes a difference?

A framework for sustained engagement

To equip employees to self-engage, firms should adopt different strategies:

  1. Individual awareness
    Help employees understand the four motivational drives and identify their unique priorities. Guide them to see the connections between who they are and their aspirations with the opportunities the firm provides them.
  2. Supportive environment
    Create a workplace culture that encourages employees to pursue and satisfy their drivers.

    • Leaders frequently discuss motivation and engagement in firmwide communications.
    • Managers know how to actively support their teams with guidance, feedback and encouragement.
  3. Regular check-ins
    Encourage employees to monitor their satisfaction with their motivational drivers and discuss adjustments with their managers.

    • Assess their current state of fulfillment in these drivers.
    • Monitor progress and movement over time.
    • React and intervene early when there are signs of disengagement.

This is a different way of conducting check-ins and reviews because the focus is on employees’ responsibility to engage themselves. The firm is ready to guide and support them in their pursuits, rather than attempting to persuade employees to conform solely to the firm’s goals and expectations. It requires a rewiring of thinking, leading and managing, but will provide a culture of engagement.

By creating an environment that nurtures these drivers and empowers employees to activate them, firms can cultivate a self-engaged workforce. Employees who are intrinsically motivated will positively impact productivity, morale and retention, contributing to a culture of lasting engagement where both individuals and organizations thrive.

Continue Reading

Accounting

AICPA wants Congress to change tax bill

Published

on

The American Institute of CPAs is asking leaders of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee to make changes in the wide-ranging tax and spending legislation that was passed in the House last week and is now in the Senate, especially provisions that have a significant impact on accounting firms and tax professionals.

In a letter Thursday, the AICPA outlined its concerns about changes in the deductibility of state and local taxes pass-through entities such as accounting and law firms that fit the definition of “specified service trades or businesses.” The AICPA urged CPAs to contact lawmakers ahead of passage of the bill in the House and spoke out earlier about concerns to changes to the deductibility of state and local taxes for pass-through entities. 

“While we support portions of the legislation, we do have significant concerns regarding several provisions in the bill, including one which threatens to severely limit the deductibility of state and local tax (SALT) by certain businesses,” wrote AICPA Tax Executive Committee chair Cheri Freeh in the letter. “This outcome is contrary to the intentions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is to strengthen small businesses and enhance small business relief.”

The AICPA urged lawmakers to retain entity-level deductibility of state and local taxes for all pass-through entities, strike the contingency fee provision, allow excess business loss carryforwards to offset business and nonbusiness income, and retain the deductibility of state and local taxes for all pass-through entities.

The proposal goes beyond accounting firms. According to the IRS, “an SSTB is a trade or business involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, investing and investment management, trading or dealing in certain assets, or any trade or business where the principal asset is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners.”

The AICPA argued that SSTBs would be unfairly economically disadvantaged simply by existing as a certain type of business and the parity gap among SSTBs and non-SSTBs and C corporations would widen.

Under current tax law (and before the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), it noted, C corporations could deduct SALT in determining their federal taxable income. Prior to the TCJA, owners of PTEs (and sole proprietorships that itemized deductions) were also allowed to deduct SALT on income earned by the PTE (or sole proprietorship). 

“However, the TCJA placed a limitation on the individual SALT deduction,” Freeh wrote. “In response, 36 states (of the 41 that have a state income tax) enacted or proposed various approaches to mitigate the individual SALT limitation by shifting the SALT liability on PTE income from the owner to the PTE. This approach restored parity among businesses and was approved by the IRS through Notice 2020-75, by allowing PTEs to deduct PTE taxes paid to domestic jurisdictions in computing the entity’s federal non-separately stated income or loss. Under this approved approach, the PTE tax does not count against partners’/owners’ individual federal SALT deduction limit. Rather, the PTE pays the SALT, and the partners/owners fully deduct the amount of their distributive share of the state taxes paid by the PTE for federal income tax purposes.”

The AICPA pointed out that C corporations enjoy a number of advantages, including an unlimited SALT deduction, a 21% corporate tax rate, a lower tax rate on dividends for owners, and the ability for owners to defer income. 

“However, many SSTBs are restricted from organizing as a C corporation, leaving them with no option to escape the harsh results of the SSTB distinction and limiting their SALT deduction,” said the letter. “In addition, non-SSTBs are entitled to an unfettered qualified business income (QBI) deduction under Internal Revenue Code section 199A, while SSTBs are subject to harsh limitations on their ability to claim a QBI deduction.”

The AICPA also believes the bill would add significant complexity and uncertainty for all pass-through entities, which would be required to perform complex calculations and analysis to determine if they are eligible for any SALT deduction. “To determine eligibility for state and local income taxes, non-SSTBs would need to perform a gross receipts calculation,” said the letter. “To determine eligibility for all other state and local taxes, pass-through entities would need to determine eligibility under the substitute payments provision (another complex set of calculations). Our laws should not discourage the formation of critical service-based businesses and, therefore, disincentivize professionals from entering such trades and businesses. Therefore, we urge Congress to allow all business entities, including SSTBs, to deduct state and local taxes paid or accrued in carrying on a trade or business.”

Tax professionals have been hearing about the problem from the Institute’s outreach campaign. 

“The AICPA was making some noise about that provision and encouraging some grassroots lobbying in the industry around that provision, given its impact on accounting firms,” said Jess LeDonne, director of tax technical at the Bonadio Group. “It did survive on the House side. It is still in there, specifically meaning the nonqualifying businesses, including SSTBs. I will wait and see if some of those efforts from industry leaders in the AICPA maybe move the needle on the Senate side.”

Contingency fees

The AICPA also objects to another provision in the bill involving contingency fees affecting the tax profession. It would allow contingency fee arrangements for all tax preparation activities, including those involving the submission of an original tax return. 

“The preparation of an original return on a contingent fee basis could be an incentive to prepare questionable returns, which would result in an open invitation to unscrupulous tax preparers to engage in fraudulent preparation activities that takes advantage of both the U.S. tax system and taxpayers,” said the AICPA. “Unknowing taxpayers would ultimately bear the cost of these fee arrangements, since they will have remitted the fee to the preparer, long before an assessment is made upon the examination of the return.”

The AICPA pointed out that contingent fee arrangements were associated with many of the abuses in the Employee Retention Credit program, in both original and amended return filings.

“Allowing contingent fee arrangements to be used in the preparation of the annual original income tax returns is an open invitation to abuse the tax system and leaves the IRS unable to sufficiently address this problem,” said the letter. “Congress should strike the contingent fee provision from the tax bill. If Congress wants to include the provision on contingency fees, we recommend that Congress provide that where contingent fees are permitted for amended returns and claims for refund, a paid return preparer is required to disclose that the return or claim is prepared under a contingent fee agreement. Disclosure of a contingent fee arrangement deters potential abuse, helps ensure the integrity of the tax preparation process, and ensures compliance with regulatory and ethical standards.”

Business loss carryforwards

The AICPA also called for allowing excess business loss carryforwards to offset business and nonbusiness income. It noted that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act amends Section 461(l)(2) of the Tax Code to provide that any excess business loss carries over as an excess business loss, rather than a net operating loss. 

“This amendment would effectively provide for a permanent disallowance of any business losses unless or until the taxpayer has other business income,” said letter. “For example, a taxpayer that sells a business and recognizes a large ordinary loss in that year would be limited in each carryover year indefinitely, during which time the taxpayer is unlikely to have any additional business income. The bill should be amended to remove this provision and to retain the treatment of excess business loss carryforwards under current law, which is that the excess business loss carries over as a net operating loss (at which point it is no longer subject to section 461(l) in the carryforward year).

AICPA supports provisions

The AICPA added that it supported a number of provisions in the bill, despite those concerns. The provisions it supports and has advocated for in the past include 

• Allow Section 529 plan funds to be used for post-secondary credential expenses;
• Provide tax relief for individuals and businesses affected by natural disasters, albeit not
permanent;
• Make permanent the QBI deduction, increase the QBI deduction percentage, and expand the QBI deduction limit phase-in range;
• Create new Section 174A for expensing of domestic research and experimental expenditures and suspend required capitalization of such expenditures;
• Retain the current increased individual Alternative Minimum Tax exemption amounts;
• Preserve the cash method of accounting for tax purposes;
• Increase the Form 1099-K reporting threshold for third-party payment platforms;
• Make permanent the paid family leave tax credit;
• Make permanent extensions of international tax rates for foreign-derived intangible income, base erosion and anti-abuse tax, and global intangible low-taxed income;
• Exclude from GILTI certain income derived from services performed in the Virgin
Islands;
• Provide greater certainty and clarity via permanent tax provisions, rather than sunset
tax provisions.

Continue Reading

Accounting

On the move: HHM promotes former intern to partner

Published

on


KPMG anoints next management committee; Ryan forms Tariff Task Force; and more news from across the profession.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Mid-year moves: Why placed-in-service dates matter more than ever for cost segregation planning

Published

on

In the world of depreciation planning, one small timing detail continues to fly under the radar — and it’s costing taxpayers serious money.

Most people fixate on what a property costs or how much they can write off. But the placed-in-service date — when the IRS considers a property ready and available for use — plays a crucial role in determining bonus depreciation eligibility for cost segregation studies.

And as bonus depreciation continues to phase out (or possibly bounce back), that timing has never been more important.

Why placed-in-service timing gets overlooked

The IRS defines “placed in service” as the moment a property is ready and available for its intended use.

For rentals, that means:

  • It’s available for move-in, and,
  • It’s listed or actively being shown.

But in practice, this definition gets misapplied. Some real estate owners assume the closing date is enough. Others delay listing the property until after the new year, missing key depreciation opportunities.

And that gap between intent and readiness? That’s where deductions quietly slip away.

Bonus depreciation: The clock is ticking

Under current law, bonus depreciation is tapering fast:

  • 2024: 60%
  • 2025: 40%
  • 2026: 20%
  • 2027: 0%

The difference between a property placed in service on December 31 versus January 2 can translate into tens of thousands in immediate deductions.

And just to make things more interesting — on May 9, the House Ways and Means Committee released a draft bill that would reinstate 100% bonus depreciation retroactive to Jan. 20, 2025. (The bill was passed last week by the House as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill and is now with the Senate.)

The result? Accountants now have to think in two timelines:

  • What the current rules say;
  • What Congress might say a few months from now.

It’s a tricky season to navigate — but also one where proactive advice carries real weight.

Typical scenarios where timing matters

Placed-in-service missteps don’t always show up on a tax return — but they quietly erode what could’ve been better results. Some common examples:

  • End-of-year closings where the property isn’t listed or rent-ready until January.
  • Short-term rentals delayed by renovation punch lists or permitting hang-ups.
  • Commercial buildings waiting on tenant improvements before becoming operational.

Each of these cases may involve a difference of just a few days — but that’s enough to miss a year’s bonus depreciation percentage.

Planning moves for the second half of the year

As Q3 and Q4 approach, here are a few moves worth making:

  • Confirm the service-readiness timeline with clients acquiring property in the second half of the year.
  • Educate on what “in service” really means — closing isn’t enough.
  • Create a checklist for documentation: utilities on, photos of rent-ready condition, listings or lease activity.
  • Track bonus depreciation eligibility relative to current and potential legislative shifts.

For properties acquired late in the year, encourage clients to fast-track final steps. The tax impact of being placed in service by December 31 versus January 2 is larger than most realize.

If the window closes, there’s still value

Even if a property misses bonus depreciation, cost segregation still creates long-term savings — especially for high-income earners.

Partial-year depreciation still applies, and in some cases, Form 3115 can allow for catch-up depreciation in future years. The strategy may shift, but the opportunity doesn’t disappear.

Placed-in-service dates don’t usually show up on investor spreadsheets. But they’re one of the most controllable levers in maximizing tax savings. For CPAs and advisors, helping clients navigate that timing correctly can deliver outsized results.

Because at the end of the day, smart tax planning isn’t just about what you buy — it’s about when you put it to work.

Continue Reading

Trending