Connect with us

Accounting

Taxpayer Advocate acknowledges shortcomings, plans improvements in TAS

Published

on

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins issued a mea culpa admitting to the findings of a recent report faulting the Taxpayer Advocate Service that she runs for slow responsiveness to taxpayers.

In a blog post Thursday, Collins initially seemed to blame the local offices for problems with answering the phones, but then acknowledged wider problems with TAS at the national level. The local phone lines were the subject of a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration that found local TAS phone lines were not consistent in giving taxpayers the ability to speak with a TAS representative. TIGTA called all 76 local TAS telephone lines in the United States, including offices in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, using the telephone numbers listed on the TAS and IRS websites. The calls found some telephone lines were not in service, voicemail boxes were full, and inconsistent recorded scripted messaging and callback time frames. Only two telephone lines were answered by a TAS representative.  Voicemail prompts indicated that callbacks would be received within time frames ranging from one business day to four weeks.  

Collins wrote that the problem with the local phone lines was limited in scope because most calls are placed to TAS’s national toll-free number, and TAS immediately took corrective actions to address TIGTA’s findings.

collins-erin-irs-aicpa-tax-conference.jpg

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins speaking at the AICPA & CIMA National Tax and Sophisticated Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

But she acknowledged a larger issue in the findings. “Although TAS ultimately serves most taxpayers well, we are not starting to work cases and we are not returning telephone calls as quickly as we would like<‘ Collins wrote. “Part of my job is to highlight areas where the IRS is not meeting expectations, so it’s only fair that I be transparent in acknowledging where TAS is falling short.”

She added that TAS is taking actions to improve its level of service to taxpayers, including new technology, as well as hiring and training more personnel. TAS’s workload has grown in recent years and Collins said she hears about the problems when she speaks to practitioners. However, she insisted that TAS resolves the majority of taxpayer problems satisfactorily and she pointed to surveys of thousands of customers, 81% of whom reported they were satisfied overall, compared to 15% who aren’t satisfied.

But she has been receiving negative feedback, at least from tax professionals. 

“Having said that, I regularly speak to groups of practitioners and hear more complaints than I would like of unreturned phone calls, delays in providing updates, and delays in resolving cases,” Collins wrote. “In a nutshell, TAS faces three core challenges in case advocacy:

  1. We are receiving more cases;
  2. We have recently hired a considerable number of new case advocates who require training before they can effectively assist taxpayers; and
  3. We are using a functionally limited case management system that is more than two decades old and causes inefficiencies and delays.”

In terms of caseload, she pointed out that TAS has received about 18 percent more cases in fiscal year 2024 than the previous two fiscal years, when it received around 220,000 cases, and TAS case advocates are carrying active inventories of over 100 cases at a time. 

In response, TAS has been hiring more new case advocates and improving its case management system, leveraging additional funding from Congress. However, Collins pointed out that it takes months, even years, to train these new hires as they will work on cases involving a wide array of procedural and technical issues, including tax return processing, identity theft, audits, collection matters and appeals.

Approximately 30% of TAS’s case advocates have less than a year of experience, and around 50% have less than two years of experience. 

“That means nearly one-third of our case advocate workforce is still receiving training and working limited caseloads or have no caseloads yet, and half are likely to require extra support for complex cases,” Collins wrote. “TAS has never had a year when so many case advocates were new. To compound the challenges, we have to temporarily reassign experienced case advocates to provide training and supervision for the new hires, further straining our resources to work current cases.” 

In response, TAS is looking at improving its training processes, for example, by training new hires on the highest volume issues first, so they can start working on those cases faster, while continuing to receive comprehensive training so they can become effective all-around advocates over time. 

Like much of the IRS, TAS is also relying on outdated technology, which is finally being upgraded thanks to recent funding boosts. The current case management system, known as the Taxpayer Advocate Management Information System, or TAMIS, is over 20 years old and lacks the kinds of features common in more modern case management systems. That means TAS case advocates need to spend extra time doing work that could be partially or fully automated.

In response, TAS is developing a new customer relationship management system, called “Phoenix,” that it plans to deploy next year. In designing and building the system, TAS is getting feedback from case advocates who use TAMIS to help identify areas where the technology can automate tasks and otherwise improve efficiencies. “The improvements in efficiency will be significant because we will be better able to understand, see and prioritize work across our workforce from both an employee and a management perspective,” said Collins.

The new system will have the flexibility for continuous improvement. Like the IRS’s Where’s My Refund? app or online account, one long-term goal is to allow taxpayers, tax pros and congressional staff to communicate with TAS and receive case updates through a What’s the Status of my TAS Case? portal or online account. 

“We know our taxpayers want more secure digital communication options and faster service,” Collins wrote. “We envision providing more real-time information and updates using system capabilities, while also allowing our case advocates to spend more of their time on case resolution. The data security concerns of allowing direct access to a portal are significant, so this functionality is probably several years away. But we are actively planning toward that goal to improve the taxpayer experience while we advocate on their behalf.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Published

on

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Corporate accounting departments face an expanded regulatory mandate as mandatory sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting frameworks take full effect internationally. Governed by the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) IFRS S1 and S2 standards, enterprise financial controllers are now legally required to track, verify, and report non-financial data with the same internal controls and auditability as traditional financial statements.

The expansion shifts ESG compliance

This regulatory expansion shifts ESG compliance from marketing departments to corporate accounting offices. Financial managers are now responsible for gathering, consolidating, and verifying carbon emissions metrics, supply chain labor conditions, water usage, and climate risk exposures across multi-tiered corporate structures. These non-financial metrics must be integrated into standardized general ledgers to withstand rigorous third-party audit assurance processes.

To comply with these rigorous reporting mandates, accounting software providers have added dedicated ESG modules designed to aggregate data from IoT sensors, utility platforms, and vendor management systems. Controllers are implementing internal control frameworks—modeled after traditional COSO frameworks—to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of sustainability disclosures, protecting organizations against greenwashing penalties and litigation risks.

The transition requires significant cross-functional collaboration between accounting teams, legal counsel, and operational directors. Accounting professionals are expanding their technical expertise beyond financial ledgers to master carbon accounting methodologies, lifecycle assessment standards, and non-financial data governance protocols, fundamentally expanding the role of the modern corporate accountant.

Why This Information Matters
Mandatory ESG disclosures require companies to treat environmental and social metrics as audited financial records. Executives, accountants, and board members must institute formal tracking and assurance processes to satisfy legal mandates, maintain investor confidence, and mitigate regulatory non-compliance risks.

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

Trending