Connect with us

Accounting

Study questions impact of tax cuts for multinationals on workers

Published

on

Policies that lower the foreign taxes of U.S.-based multinational corporations are unlikely to benefit domestic workers, according to a recent academic study.

The study, released in February, examined the impact of two different provisions. First was the 1997 “Check-the-Box” regulations, which lowered effective tax rates abroad by facilitating profit shifting from high tax foreign affiliates to tax havens. The second provision — the 2004 “repatriation holiday” — reduced the tax costs of repatriating foreign earnings for multinationals

Employing a dynamic “difference-in-differences” framework, the researchers estimated that local exposure to Check-the-Box significantly reduced domestic employment and earnings. That seems to imply multinational companies substitute domestic with foreign activity in response to lower effective tax rates abroad. 

As for the repatriation holiday, they found it “had no effects on labor markets, indicating the foreign cash holdings of U.S.-based MNCs are not an important source of financing for domestic business activity,” wrote the researchers, Daniel Garrett, assistant professor of finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Eric Ohrn, associate professor of economics at Grinnell College and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato, a professor of economics at Stanford University and a faculty associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. “We conclude that policies that lower the foreign taxes of US MNCs are unlikely to benefit domestic workers.” 

“People have known about Check-the-Box for a long time, and have had different ideas about what it does, or what it could do,” said Garrett. “What we do that’s really different than what people have done before is instead of trying to compare firms to each other based on firm characteristics, we’re trying to compare places in the U.S. that have more employment and firms that benefit from check the box relative to places in the U.S. that have less firms that benefit from check the box.”

They used a local labor markets approach comparing outcomes in more and less exposed domestic markets before and after the provisions are implemented. They determined local exposure to each provision through mapping of the geographic footprints of U.S. multinational corporations across domestic labor markets.

They found that the places in the U.S. with the most exposure to the Check-the-Box rules, by having the most firms operating in 1996 that could benefit from the rules in 1997, experienced substantial declines in employment relative to other places in the U.S. over the next 10 years. 

“This is consistent with firms that benefit from Check-the-Box,” said Garrett. “Check-the-Box lowers their foreign effective tax rate by allowing them to engage in new types of profit shifting outside of the U.S. When firms have this opportunity, they’re going to cut U.S. investment activity.”

Multinationals are benefiting in two ways from the tax changes.. “The way we lower foreign effective tax rates for U.S. multinational corporations is we’re making production outside of the U.S. relatively cheaper, and we’re also making those firms generally wealthier,” said Garrett. 

Making it cheaper to produce outside of the U.S. can be called the “substitution effect” while making firms wealthier relates to the “income effect.” 

“What our paper says is that our results are consistent with the substitution effect dominating the income effect, on average, when U.S. firms face cuts to their foreign taxes,” said Garrett. “Essentially, their U.S. production and their production outside of the U.S. are more substitutable than I think the academic literature has historically recognized.”

This type of profit shifting is being targeted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s initiatives to combat corporate tax avoidance, including the Pillar Two part of the plan setting a 15% global minimum income tax on multinational corporations.

“As we move toward a territorial world, there will be benefits to U.S. workers of supporting a global minimum tax,” said Garrett. “When relative taxes are lower in Germany than in the U.S;, we see firms boost their activity in Germany relative to the U.S. It’s very unsurprising that firms will move their production to wherever the after-tax returns are highest. If you change foreign taxes to lower the foreign taxes the firm is paying,”

A global minimum tax under Pillar Two of the OECD’s plan, and the Global Intangible Low Taxed Income, or GILTI, tax regime in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, may help U.S. workers by keeping the gap between foreign taxes and domestic taxes relatively smaller, Garrett noted. “At a high level, that kind of substitution across places is substantial for U.S. multinational firms,” he added.

The Supreme Court decision last month in the case of Moore v. United States upholding the constitutionality of the mandatory repatriation tax from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act shouldn’t have an impact on U.S. multinationals’ ability to create jobs at home. “Most of the firms with huge amounts of cash outside of the U.S. still have access to extremely liquid, extremely efficient U.S. capital markets for any investment,” said Garrett. 

As for which corporate tax policies seem to work in encouraging more hiring, he pointed to a previous study he’s done on bonus depreciation.

“Bonus depreciation in the early and late 2000s was very effective in leading firms to hire more workers to use the machines that they were buying with the bonus depreciation,” said Garrett. “There are ways to get firms to hire more workers. I don’t think that lowering the foreign effective tax rate on firms is one of them.”

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