Connect with us

Accounting

Tax bill failure in Senate could decimate small-biz R&D

Published

on

The Senate’s failure to approve a measure passed earlier this year by the House has delayed, for now, a solution to the quandary faced by many small and midsized technology companies that are severely hampered by the absence of the ability to currently deduct research & development expenses. 

“We’re seeing more news about foreign giants like Huawei that are accelerating innovation despite U.S. sanctions. This latest blow on R&D amortization could make companies vastly reduce their research budgets right at a time when the U.S. needs increased innovation to remain competitive on the world stage,” said former Congressman Rick Lazio, senior vice president at business consultancy Alliantgroup.

Historically, Code Section 174 allowed businesses to expense current-year costs related to R&D. In the run up to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, tax writers were looking for an offset so they could make the corporate tax rate lower, Lazio explained: “They settled on this relatively obscure provision that no one envisioned surviving. They thought it would allow them to get the bill through and could be changed immediately afterward. It was just a short-term fix, but elections happen, politics happen, and the rest is history. When it was adopted in 2016, it was delayed for two years to give them a chance to repeal, but elections complicated the politics and over time, when the Democrats regained power their perception was that since it happened under the Republicans’ watch — ‘You broke it, you fix it.’ 

Among the issues that hampered passage of the bill were differences between Republicans and Democrats over credits to benefit working families and people who were not working, with Republicans believing they would win back a majority in the November elections and be in a stronger position to negotiate a more favorable tax bill, including dealing with expiring provisions of the TCJA.

washington-dc-capitol-crane
A construction crane in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

Al Drago/Bloomberg

“This is what caused the bill to not be passed in the Senate up to this point,” said Lazio. “The House went through a similar process, but some of the most conservative Republicans and most progressive Democrats passed it overwhelmingly earlier this year. When it went to the Senate, Republicans insisted on changes in the Child Tax Credit as a condition. Republicans didn’t feel they could compromise, so when it came up for a vote it fell short of the 60 it needed to block a filibuster.”

The tragedy is that the absence of the ability to currently expense R&D costs places extreme hardships on small and midsized businesses, according to Lazio. 

“Many saw their tax liability grow by a factor of four or five times, and in some cases more than that,” he said. “It affects some of the most innovative businesses in the country, creating a disincentive on them continuing to innovate. The large tech companies have multibillion-dollar balance sheets and can finance the larger tax liability, but small businesses have none of those things and are the ones that in some cases are suspending R&D. In many cases they are holding up hiring and, in some cases, folding the business altogether. For example, we have clients that are engineering firms whose whole basic culture is constant innovation. They will use last year’s plans off the shelf, because they don’t want to trigger the new provisions that will require amortization over six years as opposed to the current deduction. It’s a huge hardship.”

One client, SX Industries, had a 74% tax increase in 2022, and is considering stopping their military development projects since they can no longer afford the increase. Another client, Agile Six Applications, had a total tax liability that more than doubled; rather than a total tax bill of $2.2 million, they will be expected to pay $5.05 million. 

The company builds “digital experiences” for a number of government agencies such as the Veterans Administration. “We don’t have the option to stop innovating,” said Robert Rasmussen, founder and CEO. “Our only option now is to borrow money and try to survive. It’s a unique situation aggravated by our growth rate. Profit-wise we’re making money, but if we continue to grow at that rate, we’ll just grow out of business.”

“Half of our business model is in delivering more user-friendly services to citizens (e.g., veterans accessing benefits), the other half of it is how we deliver those services,” said Rasmussen. “This is called ‘objective-based contracting,’ where we do not get paid unless objectives are met. So unlike most federal contracts, we share this risk (as to whether our technical solutions fix the problem), and therefore we have leveraged the R&D credits more than traditional contractors.”

“The systemic problem is that we end up paying taxes on 30.6% of $15.3 million) net income (calculated based on innovation expenses), while only earning 13.6% ($6.8 million),” he explained. “This example is from 2023–2024 will look worse. As we grow our organic real net income has shrunken already in 2024, but our tax liability has increased. We may have negative real net income (cost of expansion) complicated by a real increase in taxable income (cost of innovation in our deliveries).”

He concluded: “All of this leaves us in an unsustainable situation, with a negative cash flow situation with no cash to support future growth, and a growing liability with future growth as the cash flow problem grows with our growth.” 

“The irony is that American businesses are falling further behind international competitors in new areas such as AI and chip technology,” said Lazio. “In fact, the policymakers have created a perverse disincentive by allowing this provision that was never intended to be permanent to affect small and medium businesses. The history of innovation is that big players acquire companies that have developed the technology they need. They innovate by buying smaller companies that have developed it. If smaller companies are disincentivized or discouraged, then American businesses won’t have access to their technology and they become vulnerable to international competitors where the governments have encouraged R&D.”

Is there at least the possibility of a fix before smaller companies are forced to leave the playing field? “We hope so, but we’re looking at a timing problem,” said Lazio. “It won’t be until the summer or fall of 2025, before a bill the size of the TCJA comes up, and that’s an eternity away for businesses. Many won’t survive that long.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

If accounting is transforming, continuing professional education should as well

Published

on

The year-end CPE cram. It’s as cyclical as the busy season and as predictable as a client giving you the supporting documents you requested one day before the deadline while asking, “Do you think you can get this done in time?”

With all of these circumstances, we know the event is coming. We’ve been here before. We’re ready for it. Yet, like the Same-As-Last-Year accountants we are, we rarely change any behavior, simply chalking it up to “it is what it is.” 

But what if it didn’t have to be that way?

If you haven’t picked up on the transformation that the accounting industry is undergoing, you probably haven’t been reading any articles here, or anywhere on the internet for that matter, which have been published regarding all of the shifts finally catching up to the profession.

Look, let’s call a spade a spade. We understand our personalities. We aren’t going to be the folks who dive head first into a pond with murky water. It’s this risk averse nature that makes us the ultimate professional skeptics, with maximum reliability to the public and stakeholders, focused on attention to detail, and ideal most trusted financial advisors. 

However, it’s this same risk averse nature that stereotypes us as a boring, backward-looking, and late to the game profession. We were quick to tell clients that they should be moving to the cloud, but how long did it take most of our large firms to make that move?

This piece isn’t to bash our hesitancy to move forward with innovation; in fact, I would argue that our steady and cautious nature is a superpower of sorts, as we don’t just follow the untested trends that every other industry jumps on and hopes for the best. All that being said, it feels like we are making great positive strides to change in necessary ways that can catch us up to speed, so we aren’t lagging as far behind other professions in advancement.

We’ve got the 150-credit hours rule going through an evolution due to necessary adaptation, to make earning the CPA license more feasible and practical (let’s be real: work experience is where you learn the job, not in a classroom). Accounting software companies seem to be trending among the venture capitalists, as money pours into building technology solutions that address the various needs accounting departments face, and have faced for years without a non-burnout-inducing option. Even the business structure of public accounting firms is shifting, as private equity money floods these traditional partnerships. Even the CPA exam, with CPA Evolution, has transformed to address the vastly different economy and career routes that exist for accounting professionals.

So don’t you think it’s only natural that the continuing professional education, which is supposed to be how we develop our professionals, evolves and adapts too?

If you never try, you’ll never know

Yes, that’s lyrics from Coldplay’s “Fix You,” but it also leans into this proposition.

What if instead of being a tedious, burdensome, annual maintenance chore, continuing professional education was, like a college degree or technical credential, something that enabled you to advance in your career?

The thing is, it already can be. That just isn’t how we as a profession have been using it, and now we’re in this unique predicament: Is most CPE content not good because nobody cares enough to make investing in it worthwhile, or does nobody care about CPE because nobody has invested in making the content good enough to consume?

Don’t get me wrong — there is a lot of CPE content out in the market that provides immense value, whether it’s live webinars, self-study courses or in-person conferences. The issue is we haven’t embraced the shift to experiential learning in the way that only the top educators have.

The content needs to be more relevant, more directly applicable and offer a better experience. But most importantly, we need to tell a better story. The technical topics are not something that should be overshadowed in pursuit of more fun topics, but the way these courses are marketed and how they are delivered needs to improve.

There are plenty of ways to do this, but if organizations don’t try to consciously work on making better content, most professionals will rarely feel compelled to really prioritize their professional learning and development.

Some more ambitiously innovative aspirations

Anybody who knows me is aware that I have no shortage of innovative ideas. Back when I was working at Grant Thornton on the Northeast regions innovation council, our regional managing partner had the small elite task force read “The Innovators DNA” — I took that book to heart.

So while these may not be practical in the short term, these are some aspirations I have for the potential future of CPE.

  • Learning tracks that issue a certificate or credential of some sort upon completion and passing of an exam, which isn’t just something you click through irrelevant polling questions in order to get credit for.
  • Continuous learning, where it isn’t a year-end cram, but something you can do at a manageable pace. This is also a more conducive learning experience anyway.
  • Applied learning experiences, or something where you are performing in real world situations that allow learning to not be a lecture, but an experience.
  • The MasterClass of CPE. People all over the world are fascinated by the teachings on a variety of topics, from exciting to dull, that MasterClass provides. Let’s not forget that professional education is anything that can help us in our career development and make us better industry professionals, meaning this isn’t isolated to just “accounting” topics. Realistically, a lot of the master classes could be made CPE eligible if issued by an accredited entity.

NASBA is working on so many accounting pipeline crisis matters, but let’s not forget about the existing base of industry professionals, who I would argue can make for the strongest ambassadors of the accounting profession’s brand.

Where are we at now?

The discussion is just getting going. CPE platforms like Earmark, which is providing a variety of CPE in more listener friendly formats, and FloQademy, which is experimenting with never-used-before content types for free, are convenient options for knocking out the requirements. Naturally, these came out of CPAs who were frustrated with how things were done.

There is no doubt that elements from other industries, platforms and educational institutions will start to make their way into the world of CPE. As a CPA, I am personally excited for the opportunity to use my required learning time to truly enhance my depth of knowledge.

While CPE is definitely not on the top of the list for “things the accounting profession needs to address ASAP,” I would argue that the conversation starts now, or at least should, if we want to see it progress in a timely manner. Think about it — we talked about burnout for decades before it really started being taken seriously. Cloud accounting took nearly a score of years to be fully adopted. Remote work was always chatted about, but took a global crisis to really take the leap of faith.

I don’t expect CPE to change overnight, but thinking about it in the context of the future of the accounting pipeline, and how we provide a sense of “knowledge security” from the ever-daunting A.I. conversation is never too soon to start being discussed.

Can a CPE course get CPAs as hyped up as a MasterClass? I’ll be anxiously waiting to find out!

Continue Reading

Accounting

FASB releases 2025 GAAP taxonomies

Published

on

The Financial Accounting Standards Board has posted the 2025 GAAP Financial Reporting Taxonomy (GRT), the 2025 SEC Reporting Taxonomy (SRT), and the 2025 GAAP Employee Benefit Plan Taxonomy (EBPT). 

The FASB also announced earlier this month the availability of the 2025 DQC Rules Taxonomy (DQCRT) and 2025 GAAP Meta Model Relationships Taxonomy (MMT), which together with the GRT, SRT and the EBPT are collectively referred to as the “FASB Taxonomies.”

The 2025 GRT provides updates for accounting standards, including disaggregation of income statement expenses, profits interest and similar awards, and induced conversions of convertible debt instruments, and other recommended improvements. 

The 2025 EBPT includes updates from the 2024 EBPT for elements specifically created for SEC Release Nos. 33–11070; 34–95025 which includes requirements for XBRL tagging of annual reports for employee stock purchase, savings and similar plans filing SEC Form 11-K.

The 2025 SRT offers improvements for elements whose underlying recognition and measurement are not specified by GAAP but are commonly used by GAAP filers and for SEC schedules related to supplemental information provided by insurance underwriters.

The DQCRT is structured from the typical design of XBRL taxonomies because it is narrowly focused on conveying the XBRL US Data Quality Committee’s validation rules, predominantly for regulator use. It isn’t intended to be used in SEC filers’ extension taxonomies. The DQCRT contains a subset of the DQC rules. The FASB Taxonomy staff evaluates the validation rules for inclusion in the DQCRT that have been available for use for more than a year, with consideration for how the DQC addressed any feedback received on a validation rule.

The 2025 MMT includes relationships focusing on accounting model information, which are viewed as helpful information for constituents. The objectives of the relationships in the MMT are to help preparers identify the proper elements for tagging their filings, assist data users in the consumption of data with additional relationship information, and assist in writing business rules that leverage the extra relationship information to help with the proper element selection and identification.

The 2025 GRT, 2025 SRT and 2025 EBPT are expected to be accepted as final by the SEC in early 2025. The FASB Taxonomies are available on the FASB Taxonomies Page and through these links:

Continue Reading

Accounting

Appeals court reinstates injunction on CTA beneficial ownership information reporting

Published

on

A federal appeals court has reversed itself, reinstating an injunction on beneficial ownership information reporting by businesses only days after lifting it.

On Monday, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of a preliminary injunction by a federal district court in Texas that had temporarily paused a requirement for filing BOI reports with FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act of 2019 in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop Inc. v. Garland. The plaintiffs petitioned the full appeals court for an en banc rehearing to consider additional issues in the case. They argued that the panel’s decision conflicted with a 2012 Supreme Court decision in the case of National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, ignored potential violations of the First and Fourth Amendments, and improperly discounted serious harms that the plaintiffs and the public would suffer. They also argued that the decision to reinstate the Jan. 1 reporting deadline, which was only a few days away, disregarded the interests of millions of entities subject to the CTA. The law aims to deter criminals from using shell companies for illicit purposes such as money laundering and terrorism financing.

The appeals court issued an order Thursday reinstating the injunction, and noted the original order had expedited the appeal to the next available oral argument panel, which has yet to be scheduled. 

“The merits panel now has the appeal, which remains expedited, and a briefing schedule will issue forthwith,” said the court. “However, in order to preserve the constitutional status quo while the merits panel considers the parties’ weighty substantive arguments, that part of the motions-panel order granting the Government’s motion to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the CTA and the Reporting Rule is VACATED.”

Earlier this week, after the appeals court panel initially lifted the injunction, the Treasury Department announced an extension of time for businesses to file to meet the beneficial ownership information reporting deadline. Reporting companies that were created or registered prior to Jan. 1, 2024, were given until Jan. 13, 2025, to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, as opposed to the Jan. 1, 2025, deadline. The American Institute of CPAs and state CPA societies have been asking FinCEN to delay the BOI reporting requirements. Now the full appeals court appears to have delayed the reporting requirement indefinitely.

Continue Reading

Trending