In my last AT Think article, I wrote about the fast-changing nature of the interplay between AI and the job of accountants, and how accountants using AI will replace those who don’t. One of the most obvious and vulnerable roles in this transformation is the junior associate. The way this role has been historically structured is deeply rooted in manual, rote tasks like data entry, trial balance reconciliations, and tick-and-tie reviews. But with AI (especially agentic) taking over these functions, we are being forced into a reckoning. 

Our society at large is grappling with this conundrum, with Jasper.ai CEO Timothy Young recently saying this: With the commoditization of intelligence, it’s not about having the smartest people anymore. It’s about developing your staff to have management skills because every employee in the next 12 months is going to have a series of agents that are helping them do their work… There is a lot of power in junior employees, but you can’t leverage them the same way that you would in the past.” 

This is the chasm our profession is staring down—rethinking how we onboard and grow talent, or risking falling into the chasm ourselves. 

The good news is that we’ve seen this movie before. 

Just as aviation transformed how pilots were trained in the era of electronic systems and autopilot, accounting must now rethink how we develop early-career talent. When automation entered the cockpit, pilot training didn’t disappear—it evolved. Entry-level pilots still needed to understand aviation deeply, but the way they gained that experience changed. Similarly, surgeons had to evolve with the rise of robotic-assisted surgery. They still required deep anatomical knowledge and surgical judgment, but their training incorporated simulation labs, new muscle memory, and collaboration with technology. These professionals didn’t lose their relevance—they adapted and expanded it. 

Likewise, with the right approach, our entire profession can not only cross this chasm, but thrive in this new AI-powered era.  

The Apprenticeship Model No Longer Works

Traditionally, the accounting profession has leaned heavily on the apprenticeship model. A junior accountant joins the firm, gets assigned lower-complexity tasks, and over time—through review feedback, partner interactions, and real-world exposure—builds the judgment muscle required to lead engagements. 

This model assumes: 

(1) low-complexity tasks will always be valuable for the junior associate to execute; and 

(2) judgment and learning to think must come by doing low-complexity tasks. 

Because the first assumption is being invalidated by AI every day with AI performing the work better, faster, and cheaper, we must find a path forward that addresses the need to learn judgment in a new way. 

The core challenge we face is this: How do we train someone to think like a professional accountant, to build sound judgment and apply skepticism, without relying on the traditional work that used to scaffold that learning? 

Herein lies our opportunity: successfully decoupling the development of judgment from the doing of low-complexity work.  

The New Junior Associate Role: AI-Native, Judgment-Building through a Learning-First Approach

If we accept that the apprenticeship model no longer works in its traditional form, then we must deliberately architect what replaces it. What follows are thoughts on how we reshape that role to prepare accountants not for the jobs of yesterday, but for the AI-first world of tomorrow. 

(1) Non-billable, structured learning scenarios where junior staff perform low-complexity tasks like trial balance reconciliations or tax prep simulations—not to complete client work, but to understand the patterns and build mental models. This means doing work to build context, not to bill hours. 

A personal example: I’m in the middle of a course on AI where I am prototyping AI agents. Am I planning to deploy production-grade agents? No. (I can ship production code, but trust me you don’t want me to at this point). But I need to understand enough to direct strategy, evaluate vendors, and help firms deploy AI at scale.  

(2) AI-human collaborative simulations where staff run through a task, review how AI would perform it, and iterate based on discrepancies. This type of simulation could deliberately introduce common mistakes and heuristics that junior accountants could learn from. 

This simulation requires capturing more experienced accountants’ judgment and heuristics, which we’ve traditionally not documented, because this learning was organic and incidental. But the moment is here to capture all of this explicitly to train the next generation.  

(3) Curiosity and resilience as a hiring filter, seeking out those who are coachable, agile, and adaptive, rather than just academic excellence and technical prowess. 

This shift means we no longer hire for task execution—we hire for potential, and train for independent thinking in a hybrid AI-human world. 

 (4) Creating space for experimentation, where junior staff are encouraged to try new workflows, ask questions, and even break things—as long as they learn from it. This isn’t just about tolerance for failure, it’s about engineering an environment where feedback loops, iterative problem-solving, and psychological safety are part of the DNA.  

In practice, this could mean assigning internal sandbox projects, encouraging junior staff to prototype internal automations, or hosting “failure retrospectives” where teams share what they tried, what broke, and what they learned. These activities cultivate the critical thinking and resilience that today’s accountants need to effectively partner with AI, not just operate alongside it. 

Final Thought: Let’s Build that Bridge and Cross Together

If we don’t act now, we will soon find ourselves with a generation of mid-career gaps; no one trained to lead, no one with the context to take the reins. But if we treat this as an inflection point, we can design new, AI-native career pathways that are adaptive, resilient, and empowering. 

It starts with reimagining the junior associate role not as a vestige of a dying model, but as the foundation for the next era of professional judgment and leadership. 

The American Institute of CPAs is worried about a provision in the tax reconciliation bill that would limit the deductibility of state and local taxes paid by partnerships such as accounting firms. 

The legislation, which was approved early Tuesday morning by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee after an overnight markup, eases some of the existing disparities from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on claiming the Section 199A Qualified Business Income deduction, known as the “specified service trade or business” limitation. It applies to accounting firms, as well as law firms, consultancies and other types of businesses that rely on a specialized reputation or skill. 

The AICPA praised the retention of the Section 199A qualified business income deduction, as well as the increase to 23% of the QBI deduction, which has been 20% under the TCJA, and modification of the SSTB limitation for pass-through entity taxes. But it objected to other changes in the bill to the limitation.

“The proposed bill would unfairly exclude SSTBs from deducting state and local income taxes at the partnership level, as is currently permitted,” said the AICPA. “The targeting of SSTBs would indirectly increase taxes on millions of service-based businesses and expand the disparity in how the tax code treats C corporations versus pass-through entities. The AICPA believes that Congress should retain the current ability for pass-through entities — which make up the vast majority of businesses — to deduct the entity’s state and local taxes at the federal level.”

According to the IRS, “an SSTB is a trade or business involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, investing and investment management, trading or dealing in certain assets, or any trade or business where the principal asset is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners.”

“While the AICPA remains grateful for the diligent work of the Ways and Means Committee to provide taxpayers and practitioners with common-sense tax policies that will have a continued benefit to the country and on the tax administration process, we remain deeply troubled by the proposed changes to the PTET deduction,” said AICPA president and CEO Mark Koziel in a statement Wednesday. “The changes to this vital deduction are unfair to businesses that are the backbone of the American economy, which include accounting firms, medical offices and Main Street businesses, of which the majority are structured as pass-throughs. It is integral that we have parity amongst all types of entities; the AICPA is committed to ensuring that the guiding principles of good tax policy and the interests of taxpayers and tax practitioners are taken into account during the reconciliation process, as these policies will have a significant impact on both. We will continue advocating for policies that exemplify the guiding principles that drive success throughout the profession. Treating any service business more harshly does not seem to follow the principles of good tax policy, such as neutrality, simplicity, fairness, certainty and transparency.”

The provision may have been a mixup, one expert speculated. “It is possible that 199A went up to 23% and the rule for people who are over that income threshold seems to have been revised in a way that could allow perhaps more people to get more generous benefits under 199A,” said Rochelle Hodes, a principal in the Washington national tax office at Crowe, a Top 25 Firm based in Chicago. “That seems to be the high-level takeaway on 199A. But when you look at the change to Section 275, which is addressing the SALT workaround that states have enacted into law, what they call pass-through entity taxes, it appears that the computation of that tax of those provisions could be less than favorable for some of the SSTBs. Nobody knows. Was that intentional? Was it just a relic? Was it two different groups working on two different things? There’s definitely an issue there.”

The AICPA also objected to another provision in the bill involving the permanent suspension of personal casualty loss deductions not attributable to federally declared disasters. “The AICPA has supported reinstating the casualty loss deduction to pre-TCJA rules,” said the Institute.

On the other hand, the AICPA gave a “strong endorsement” to many of the other provisions in the bill, including:

• An increase in the standard deduction for years 2025-2028;
• Making the tax bracket rates under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent;
• Inclusion of legislation to expand the use of Section 529 accounts for costs associated with obtaining a post-secondary credential, which grants financial flexibility to those pursuing or advancing in the accounting profession;
• Repeal of the American Rescue Plan Act’s lowered threshold for Form 1099-K to $600 for an unlimited number of transactions; the reconciliation legislation will return the requirement to a $20,000 threshold and over 200 transactions;
• Provision regarding Section 174 research and experimental expenditures, which may now be capitalized for domestic research or experimental expenditures over the useful life of the research or over 10 years beginning with the taxable year of expenditure;
• Provision regarding the Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax Credit Extension and Enhancement Act, which would provide certainty to businesses by making a temporary paid family leave tax credit permanent;
• Retention of the TCJA higher exemption amounts for the individual alternative minimum tax, which simplifies filing for many taxpayers; and
• Provision regarding section 163(j), which reinstates the earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization — or EBITDA — limitation.

The bill is likely to go through further changes as it makes its way through the House and Senate, where some Republicans from blue states have raised objections to various provisions, particularly with the SALT deduction. 

“There is not a consensus among the Republican caucus regarding how the expiring SALT cap should be resolved,” said Hodes. “That’s how I would put it.”

Key Senate Republicans are resisting the House’s plan to gut clean energy tax credits, vowing to soften the blow for emerging technologies and nuclear power.

The pushback comes after House Republicans released a plan to help pay for an extension of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts by cutting more than $500 billion in energy tax credits from former President Joe Biden’s signature climate law.

The comments from GOP lawmakers mean industries facing a sharp cutoff in federal help still have a chance to preserve their tax incentives for longer.

The plan “needs refinement,” said Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, who serves on the Senate’s tax writing committee and was one of four Republicans to sign a letter to Senate leadership last month, vowing to defend Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act’s energy tax credits. “It needs more transitions. It’s not quite what we would author out here.” 

The House’s plan to phase out technology-neutral tax credits for green energy projects that begin operating in 2029 is too aggressive, and emerging technologies should be given more time, said Senator Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican.

“I think that the newer credits that have yet to really be applied will need to be extended beyond 2029,” Cramer told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday. “I would expect we will make some changes to try and improve it.” 

Cramer also said the House GOP’s deadline to phase out a production tax credit for nuclear power by 2032 needs to be pushed back. 

In all, the House bill would save $560 billion by rolling back incentives for clean energy and electric vehicles. Production and investment credits for clean electricity production from energy sources like wind and solar and another credit for nuclear electricity would be phased out, while credits for electric vehicles and hydrogen production would also end.

The legislation, which the House is aiming to pass by the end of the month, would then go to the Senate, where Republicans can only afford three defections and still pass it.

The tax credits, which were initially estimated by congressional estimators to cost $270 billion, have been forecast to cost trillions of dollars over the coming decades. That makes them a tempting target for Republicans seeking to pay for extending tax cuts that are also estimated to cost trillions.

But the credits are also providing jobs and spurring the construction of factories in numerous GOP districts.

Emerging Republican pushback means the House plan is likely a “ceiling for changes to the credits,” research firm Capstone LLC wrote in a note to clients. It said additional changes weakening the energy tax cuts could be made by moderate House Republicans before the bill is sent to the Senate.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican and moderate who also signed the April letter vowing to defend the credits, said she anticipated changes. 

“Anything that comes over from the House, almost by law, we’ve got to redo,” Murkowski told reporters.