Connect with us

Accounting

Tax Strategy: The difficult road to tax legislation in 2025

Published

on

Congress has started on the process of enacting major tax legislation in 2025. While both chambers of Congress and the Trump administration seem to want major tax legislation this year, and most expect them to somehow be able to achieve it, it looks like it is going to be a very difficult process.

As is often done with tax legislation by the party in the majority, to avoid the filibuster rules in the Senate requiring a 60-vote margin, the Republicans propose to pass the legislation under the budget reconciliation rules, requiring only a simple majority vote. Usually, the rules only permit one budget reconciliation bill per year; however, since no budget reconciliation bill was utilized in 2024, the rules permit two budget reconciliation bills this year.

At press time, the House was working on one large bill that includes taxes, border issues, and anything else related to revenue. The rules forbid inclusion of any provisions not germane to revenue. The Senate, however, is currently pursuing two budget reconciliation bills, with the first including everything except taxes, and taxes postponed to the second bill later in the year.

Before starting on the tax legislation itself, the House and Senate are required to agree on a budget framework, specifying how much in tax cuts and spending cuts may be included in the legislation.

A close up of the capital building with an American flag

The House, by a bare majority vote of 217-215, approved a budget resolution specifying $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in spending cuts. The House resolution also assigned some allocations of spending cuts to specific committees, including an allocation of $880 billion to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is responsible for Medicaid.

The Senate has approved a budget number for its first budget reconciliation bill; however, it has not yet approved a budget number for the second reconciliation bill on tax matters. The House and Senate must agree on identical budget reconciliation numbers before proceeding to the legislative committees. It has been estimated that achieving this budget agreement alone could take into the mid-April time frame, and those estimates are usually optimistic.

Budget reconciliation also comes with some additional restrictions. In addition to all provisions being required to relate to revenue, budget reconciliation also requires that there be no projection of negative revenue impact beyond 10 years. This results in budget reconciliation bills often including temporary provisions, phase-ins and phase-outs to try to stay within the approved budget numbers.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

The primary focus of the tax legislation this year is extending the individual provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire at the end of 2025, a result of the TCJA itself having been passed under budget reconciliation with the budget number and 10-year restrictions.

There are also several business provisions that started to phase down a couple of years ago that the Republicans would also like to restore retroactively. Extending all these provisions permanently is estimated to cost over $4 trillion. It is estimated that a seven-year extension, as discussed in the House, would cost $3.7 trillion.

One key difference between the House and Senate is whether to just extend these provisions for some additional years or make them permanent. The Senate position currently is that they should be permanent, while the House appears willing to extend them for a shorter period in order to include some additional tax breaks. Both the House and Senate appear willing to utilize a current policy baseline in determining the extent to which tax provisions need to be offset to come within the budget reconciliation limitations.

Under the current policy baseline, merely extending provisions of the Tax Code already in effect does not require revenue offsets to avoid being counted in the budget restriction numbers. Congress has more commonly used a current law baseline, which would require extensions to be offset. This opens up $4 trillion for other tax cuts proposals; however, it still adds $4 trillion to any projected deficits. While it might work for budget reconciliation, it is likely to raise opposition from deficit hawks in Congress about its use greatly contributing to the deficit.

Other tax breaks

The legislation is also likely to consider additional tax breaks. In addition to the expiring TCJA provisions, additional expiring provisions likely to get consideration for extension include the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the New Markets Tax Credit.

President Trump has also proposed several additional tax breaks: eliminating the tax on Social Security benefits, eliminating the tax on tips, eliminating the tax on overtime, exempting Americans living abroad from income tax, and reducing the corporate tax rate to 15% for domestic manufacturers and to 18% or 20% for other corporations.

Trump has also seemed open to modifying or eliminating the $10,000 state and local tax deduction limit included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which might also be necessary to gain the support of Republicans in Congress from high-tax states, although there is also a proposal to include eliminating the pass-through entity work-around for the SALT deduction.

Republicans have also generally supported repeal of the estate tax and repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax.

Revenue raisers and spending cuts

President Trump has also mentioned some possible revenue raisers, which might provide a revenue offset for some of these tax cuts:

  • Taxing carried interests at ordinary income rates;
  • Increasing the tax on private university endowments;
  • Reducing deductions available to sports team owners;
  • Repealing or reducing the mortgage interest deduction;
  • Repealing some or all of the green energy tax credits included in the Inflation Reduction Act;
  • Ending the Employee Retention Credit;
  • Repealing the nonprofit status of hospitals;
  • Repealing the exclusion for municipal bond interest; and,
  • Pulling back some IRS enforcement funding.

Trump also views his tariff proposals as providing additional revenue offsets.
The spending cut provisions in the budget reconciliation will also require difficult decisions with respect to determining who will bear the burden of those cuts. We have already seen the disarray created by the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency to reduce the federal workforce.

Narrow Republican margins

Not only are there differences between the Republicans in the House and Republicans in the Senate, there are also differences among the Republicans in each body.

The narrow Republican majorities in both the House and Senate means that passage requires attracting the votes of almost every Republican member. This has proved especially difficult for the House, as evidenced by the budget number approval passing by only a two-vote margin, and that was only achieved by getting members to put off their concerns until they could be addressed during the legislation drafting process.

Postponing those issues until later just adds more difficulty in crafting legislation in a way that will retain those votes. Some of those issues include the SALT deduction limit, the permanency of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act extension, potential reductions in Medicaid funding, and deficit concerns.

Summary

While the odds of major tax legislation this year still look good, it is likely to be a very difficult process that drags on through much of the year. It appears that either some of the proposed tax cuts will have to be passed on or put into effect for only a limited period, that deficits will be significantly increased, or that budget gimmicks such as use of the current policy baseline or taking tariffs into account will be used to try to claim compliance with the budget reconciliation numbers.

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