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.
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.”
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.
Internal audit departments and corporate risk managers are modernizing internal control frameworks by shifting from periodic sampling techniques to continuous monitoring and machine learning analytics. As operational data volumes increase across enterprise organizations, automated control testing ensures financial integrity, prevents corporate fraud, and streamlines annual audit engagements.
The Limitation of Periodic Audit Sampling
Historically, internal and external auditors evaluated internal controls by reviewing random samples of financial transactions—often analyzing less than five percent of total ledger entries. In complex enterprise environments, periodic sampling methods carry inherent risks of overlooking localized financial misstatements, unauthorized disbursements, or operational control breakdowns.
In 2026, progressive internal audit functions are utilizing automated continuous monitoring platforms that evaluate one hundred percent of financial transactions in real time. Continuous control auditing systems continuously monitor general ledger entries, procurement approvals, and expense reimbursements across all operating subsidiaries.
AI-Powered Fraud Detection and Anomaly Identification
Machine learning models trained on historical corporate financial data excel at identifying subtle transactional anomalies that indicate potential fraud or operational error. Automated systems instantly flag duplicate invoice payments, unapproved vendor creation, unusual journal entry timing, and unauthorized override of authority thresholds.
When an anomaly is detected, the automated auditing platform generates an instant risk alert, allowing internal audit teams to investigate root causes immediately. Early detection prevents minor operational errors from escalating into material weaknesses in financial reporting.
Streamlining External Audit Preparation
Continuous internal control monitoring delivers significant benefits during annual external financial audits. External audit firms can review continuous audit logs and automated control testing documentation, reducing the time required for manual field testing.
This integrated approach lowers overall audit compliance fees, reduces administrative burdens on corporate accounting staff, and provides senior management and audit committees with real-time visibility into the organization’s overall risk profile.
Core Implementation Guidelines
1. Transition to 100% Data Testing: Replace legacy sampling methods with automated continuous audit monitoring systems.
2. Deploy Anomaly Detection Algorithms: Implement machine learning models to identify unauthorized transactions and operational control overrides.
3. Align Internal and External Audit Workflows: Coordinate continuous control testing protocols with external auditors to optimize annual compliance cycles.
Corporate tax accounting departments are navigating an era of unprecedented regulatory complexity as global tax harmonization frameworks take full effect alongside real-time digital tax reporting mandates. Tax directors and accounting teams are adopting cloud-based tax compliance automation tools to manage multi-jurisdictional tax liabilities and satisfy stringent reporting rules across international jurisdictions.
Implementation of Global Minimum Tax Provisions
The implementation of international tax reform agreements—notably the Pillar Two global minimum tax framework—has reshaped multinational corporate tax planning. Multinational enterprises with consolidated revenues exceeding established thresholds must ensure an effective tax rate of at least 15% across every jurisdiction in which they operate.
Accounting teams are implementing specialized tax calculation modules integrated directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms. These automated tools calculate effective tax rates per country, identify top-up tax liabilities, and generate standardized compliance documentation required by national tax authorities.
Real-Time Digital Invoicing and E-Reporting Mandates
Tax authorities across Europe, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific have enacted mandatory electronic invoicing (e-invoicing) and continuous transaction controls (CTC). Under these systems, corporate transaction data must be submitted electronically to government portals in real time at the point of sale or invoice issuance.
This shift toward continuous digital tax reporting eliminates traditional annual tax audits in favor of ongoing automated compliance monitoring. Accounting departments are upgrading invoicing software to ensure seamless XML data formatting, digital signature authentication, and real-time validation against tax authority databases.
Automation and Data Analytics in Corporate Tax Strategy
To keep pace with dynamic tax legislation, tax departments are transitioning from reactive compliance teams to proactive strategic advisors. Machine learning algorithms analyze corporate transactional data to identify tax credits, research and development (R&D) incentives, and cross-border transfer pricing adjustments.
By automating routine tax return filings and calculations, corporate tax directors can focus on long-term capital structuring, evaluating the tax implications of corporate mergers, and optimizing international supply chain networks.
Strategic Priorities for Tax Executives
1. ERP System Upgrades: Ensure enterprise software is capable of generating real-time, granular tax data required for global minimum tax compliance.
2. E-Invoicing Integration: Implement scalable e-invoicing platforms to satisfy regional continuous transaction control regulations.
3. Strategic Tax Analytics: Utilize predictive tax modeling tools to evaluate structural changes in corporate operations and cross-border trade.