Connect with us

Accounting

The effect of the November presidential election on IRS funding

Published

on

Like most federal agencies, the Internal Revenue Service is funded through annual appropriations. However, in 2022 the IRS also received $80 billion of multiyear funding under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. In the two years since the IRA was enacted, approximately $20 billion was clawed back. 

Depending on the outcome of the November presidential and congressional elections, the amount of IRA funding could be reduced further. This article provides a high-level overview of how the IRS is funded and considers how the IRS’s budget might fare after the next election.

Current IRS funding

While IRS funding through the congressional appropriations process has remained relatively constant (fluctuating between around $11 billion to a bit more than $12 billion), since 2010 the amount has decreased in inflation-adjusted dollars. This decrease in funding has resulted in significant reductions in the IRS’s workforce (which reduced taxpayer service and enforcement capabilities) and challenges in modernizing outdated technology. Meanwhile, the tax gap (the difference between tax owed and the tax paid on time) is increasing and was estimated to be $688 billion in tax year 2021.

IRS funding under the IRA was enacted to supplement the agency’s annual appropriations to provide a consistent source of multiyear funding to facilitate improvements and enable better strategic planning. Almost half of the funding from the IRA (about $46 billion) was directed to be used for enforcement, with the remainder allocated to taxpayer service, business systems modernization and operations support. 

Under revenue-estimating rules, allocating money to enforcement raised revenue (about $180 billion) that was used to offset the cost of the IRA (which mostly was attributable to clean energy tax benefits). So far, the IRS has used a good portion of the IRA funding, including to help reduce processing backlogs and overall taxpayer service deficits, and it is estimated that after the $20 billion clawback, approximately $40 billion remains. Under the IRS’s strategic operating plan, enforcement funding is focused on large corporations, complex partnerships and high-net-worth individuals, as well as international tax compliance and high-income nonfilers.

Partisan view of IRS funding

The Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House when the IRA was enacted, but Republicans won control of the House in 2023. While Democrats view the IRS’s IRA funding as separate from the agency’s annual appropriations, Republicans view IRS funding more holistically and have attempted to reduce total agency funding by reducing both IRA funding and IRS appropriations. This effort has been partially successful and likely will continue.

The Biden-Harris administration has proposed increasing the IRS’s annual appropriations, requesting $12.32 billion for fiscal year 2025, and increasing and extending multiyear funding through 2034. 

House appropriators have proposed IRS appropriations below the amount requested by the Biden-Harris administration, including a $2 billion reduction in funding for enforcement, but to date have not proposed additional clawbacks of IRA funding. In contrast, Democrats in the Senate support IRA multiyear funding of the IRS and sustained annual appropriations to preserve gains.

Although Donald Trump has not spoken specifically about IRS funding during this campaign cycle, the candidate’s campaign website, campaign staff and surrogates have said that a Trump administration would use impoundment (essentially, not spending appropriated funds) and would continue plans started in 2020 to shrink the federal bureaucracy.

These broader plans could be used to significantly reduce IRS funding and staffing. Budget requests for the IRS for fiscal years 2018 through 2021, when Donald Trump was president, were lower than prior years.

Even if IRS funding survives the fiscal year 2025 congressional budget process relatively unscathed (for instance, agency annual appropriations don’t take too great a hit and there isn’t an additional clawback of IRA money), the fiscal year 2026 budget process begins in February 2025, which gives Congress another opportunity to address IRS funding during the height of discussions about how to address expiring provisions enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

White House

Extending all TCJA provisions is estimated to cost $4.6 trillion, and differences exist regarding whether offsets should be required. A discussion of offsets surely will include IRS annual appropriations and the agency’s multiyear funding under the IRA. Even if not tapped as an offset for the cost of extending expiring provisions under the TCJA, the IRS’s funding might be an attractive offset to pay for nontax-related priorities. If TCJA negotiations continue into 2026 (or even 2027), which is possible, tax and IRS funding could be an issue in the November 2026 midterm elections.

IRS funding after the election

While no one knows for certain the outcome of the elections in November, four possible outcomes generally exist: Two where one party or the other wins control of the House, Senate and White House, and two where one party or the other controls the White House, but the Congress is either divided or the party that didn’t win the presidency controls each chamber. Each scenario could have an impact on IRS funding, as follows:

  1. Republicans win the White House, House and Senate: There is a high risk that IRS funding will be reduced below levels appropriated in recent years and remaining IRA funding could be completely rescinded. This conclusion is based on recent appropriations proposals by congressional Republicans and Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to reduce government spending and the number of federal employees. 
  1. Republicans win the White House but lose one or both chambers of Congress: The result here is likely to be the same as above. This is because Donald Trump has pledged to reduce government spending and the number of federal employees. Even if Congress enacts a steady or increased level of annual IRS funding with a veto-proof majority, Donald Trump has stated that he would use impoundment to rescind or defer spending.
  1. Democrats win the White House, House and Senate: It is highly unlikely that IRA funding will be reduced (and it could even be increased), and the IRS’s appropriations for fiscal year 2025 and 2026 likely will be relatively steady or even increase. 
  1. Democrats win the White House but lose one or both chambers of Congress: Even though the Biden-Harris administration agreed to reductions in IRA funding in 2023 and 2024, the amount remaining after the clawbacks and IRS investments so far leave little room for concessions. However, IRS annual funding levels could be reduced, particularly if Republicans control the House and the Senate. 

Based on these possible outcomes, the following matrix illustrates what might happen to IRS funding in 2025 and 2026 in each scenario:

Party in control of White House Party in control of the House  Party in control of the Senate Risk of reduction of IRS annual funding levels Steady or increased levels of IRS annual funding Risk of reduction of IRA funding

R

R

R

X

X

R

D

D

X

X

R

D

R

X

X

R

R

D

X

X

D

D

D

X

D

D

R

X

D

R

D

X

D

R

R

X

The November elections are fast approaching. While it’s possible that an individual’s view of the IRS and how it spends the money it receives from Congress will affect how they vote, it’s more likely that the converse will be true — how people vote on other issues will influence IRS funding.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Continuous Auditing Transforms Corporate ERPs

Published

on

continuous auditing transforms corporate erps

As corporate accounting departments cross the threshold into late July 2026, the adoption of continuous, automated auditing systems has reached a definitive turning point. Driven by advances in artificial intelligence and deep integration with modern Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platforms, leading finance organizations are moving away from traditional, periodic post-hoc audits in favor of real-time, 100% transactional verification. This technological transition is redefining internal control environments, reducing compliance costs, and eliminating the structural delays inherent in legacy quarterly closing processes.

Unlike traditional auditing frameworks that rely on statistical sampling—a process that inevitably leaves operational blind spots—continuous auditing software monitors operational data feeds continuously. Every purchase order, electronic invoice, payroll disbursement, and cross-border wire transfer is automatically cross-referenced against established corporate governance parameters, regulatory tax schedules, and anti-fraud algorithms in real time. Anomalies or unauthorized ledger entries are flagged instantly, allowing internal audit teams to investigate and remediate compliance gaps immediately rather than months after the close of a financial period.

The implications for executive financial management are far-reaching. By embedding continuous verification directly into daily transaction workflows, chief financial officers gain uninterrupted visibility into the organization’s true financial standing. Real-time balance sheet auditing eliminates the severe operational bottlenecks associated with month-end and quarter-end financial reconciliations, freeing accounting professionals to focus on strategic financial modeling, tax planning, and capital allocation rather than manual data entry and spreadsheet consolidation.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting leadership to invest heavily in data governance and technical upskilling. Internal audit teams must evolve from manual ledger reviewers into system architects capable of auditing complex algorithms and validating automated data pipelines. Accounting firms and corporate controllers that master continuous auditing will establish a resilient compliance framework capable of meeting stringent international regulatory standards with total transparency.

Continue Reading

Accounting

U.S. Imposes New 50% Tariffs on Canadian Imports Under Rare Legal Provision

Published

on

U.S. Imposes New 50% Tariffs on Canadian Imports Under Rare Legal Provision

WASHINGTON — In a major escalation of cross-border trade friction, U.S. President Donald Trump has signed executive orders imposing new 50% tariffs on a wide selection of Canadian exports, citing discriminatory practices by Ottawa targeting American auto, dairy, and beverage industries.

The new duties, announced Monday, will take effect in 30 days. They target a broad spectrum of consumer and industrial goods—ranging from wine, liquor, and milk products to commercial cement, furniture, clothing, and hockey equipment.

Untested Legal Mechanism

To enact the sweeping measures, the administration invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930—a rarely used legal provision allowing the executive branch to levy additional tariffs of up to 50% on foreign nations deemed to discriminate against U.S. commerce.

White House officials noted that Section 338 addresses trade discrimination rather than national security or economic emergencies. The move comes months after prior global emergency tariffs faced legal challenges in domestic courts, signaling Washington’s pivot toward alternate statutory authorities to maintain import duties.

Senior administration officials briefed reporters that the measure directly responds to Canadian provincial bans on U.S. alcohol, restrictions on American vehicle exports, and import quota disparities affecting U.S. dairy and cheese producers relative to third-party trading partners.

“While the administration continues to secure reciprocal trade agreements globally, Canada retaliated against efforts to protect domestic industry,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated.

USMCA Impact and Carve-Outs

Significantly, the newly ordered 50% duties will apply to designated items even if they otherwise comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

However, the administration confirmed key targeted exemptions:

  • Energy products (including oil and natural gas)
  • Potash and critical minerals
  • Fish and seafood
  • Goods already governed by sector-specific duties (such as existing steel and aluminum tariffs)

Administration representatives emphasized that the tariffs do not stem from recent disputes concerning drifting Canadian wildfire smoke, noting that policy options regarding environmental spillover remain under separate review.

Canadian Response and Market Reaction

Following the White House announcement, the Canadian dollar experienced a sharp decline against the U.S. dollar, falling approximately 0.4% during evening trading.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a statement emphasizing that Canada’s earlier counter-duties had merely matched previous U.S. trade actions. “Canada stands ready to engage intensively to address outstanding issues with the U.S. to the mutual benefit of our citizens,” Carney stated, pointing to detailed proposals Ottawa submitted to modernize the USMCA framework.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford took a firmer stance, urging a “dollar-for-dollar” reciprocal response if the measures go into effect on August 19.

With a 30-day implementation window before the duties officially lock in, industry associations and trade groups on both sides of the border are calling for urgent bilateral negotiations to avert further supply chain disruption across North America.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Continuous Auditing: Transforming Compliance and Real-Time Financial Oversight

Published

on

Transforming Compliance and Real-Time Financial Oversight

The traditional accounting paradigm—defined by periodic monthly closures and post-hoc annual audits—is rapidly giving way to continuous, automated financial oversight. As of July 2026, forward-thinking accounting practices and multinational corporate finance departments are leveraging continuous auditing systems powered by advanced machine learning models. These systems monitor operational transactions in real time, shifting audit methodologies from sample-based post-analysis to absolute, 100% transaction-level verification.

The operational advantages of continuous auditing are transformative. Standard auditing procedures historically relied on statistical sampling, which, despite rigorous methodology, inherently left gaps where anomalies or fraudulent transactions could go undetected for months. Modern continuous auditing platforms integrate directly with enterprise resource planning (ERP) databases, instantly cross-referencing purchase orders, invoices, bank feeds, and tax records. Any deviation from established control parameters or unusual transaction behavior triggers immediate flags for internal audit teams, dramatically reducing detection lag from quarters to seconds.

Beyond fraud prevention, continuous auditing fundamentally alters internal reporting and decision-making. Executive leadership no longer has to wait weeks after the close of a quarter to evaluate precise financial standing; real-time verified ledger data provides an uninterrupted view of operating margins, tax liabilities, and cash flow dynamics. This real-time visibility enables corporate controllers to adjust capital allocation strategies dynamically, mitigating liquidity constraints and capitalizing on emerging commercial opportunities far more efficiently than competitors bound to legacy reporting cycles.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting professionals to acquire new analytical capabilities. The role of the auditor is evolving from manual data reconciliation toward system validation, algorithmic model governance, and strategic risk interpretation. Accounting firms and corporate finance departments must invest in continuous technical education, ensuring that audit staff possess the data engineering skills necessary to design, maintain, and evaluate complex automated compliance systems.

Continue Reading

Trending