Accounting

The litigator’s lens: A new perspective on audit risk management

Published

2 days ago

March 31, 2025

Audit engagement risk is something all auditors think about and incorporate into their decisions, but recent research suggests that they might not be thinking about it as broadly as they should.

To better understand audit litigation risks, we joined our colleagues in interviewing 39 very experienced audit litigators, including attorneys, trial consultants, and expert witnesses. These experts averaged 31 years of experience in audit litigation and provided us with a comprehensive perspective on trial preparation. Our study, published in “The Accounting Review,” was inspired by earlier work with litigators suggesting that auditors systematically underestimate audit litigation risk because they don’t adequately understand all the factors that can affect it.

Even when auditors follow all the standards and perform a high-quality audit, they can still be sued if a client or third parties believe they made a mistake. This includes honest errors, fraud that they didn’t catch, or misperception about what an audit actually covers. Even a squeaky-clean audit won’t immunize you from litigation, and there are several other factors that can affect the outcome of a case, many of which come into focus during trial preparation.

So, it’s not enough to focus on audit quality — it’s also critical to focus on what would happen if your work were ever to go before a judge and jury.

Think like a litigator

Based on our research, the first thing you need to do is start thinking like a litigator and learn to think about your audits through a legal lens. The “Elaboration Likelihood Model” from psychology research provides a helpful way to think about this.

ELM explains how people — including judges and juries — are persuaded, and it depends on how deeply they think about the information they’re given. “High elaboration” means jurors are thinking critically about the evidence and the facts of the case, while “low elaboration” means they’re going more with their gut feeling and emotions.

Here’s what our research found:

Plaintiff attorneys prefer to keep things simple and emotional, encouraging low elaboration by jurors. They know that auditing standards are complex, and most jurors don’t have the background to understand them. They’ll often use arguments like, “This company lost millions of dollars. The auditor should have caught it.” This kind of argument preys on the misconception that many jurors have — that an audit is a guarantee of accuracy or future business success.
Defense attorneys, in contrast, want jurors to use high elaboration. To achieve that, they need to spend a lot of time educating jurors about the technical details of auditing, the relevant standards, and what an auditor’s work actually showed. They essentially have to teach a crash course in auditing, which is difficult and time-consuming, and there’s no guarantee that it will work.

The venue and jury matter

The venue of the trial and the potential jury pool are also really important and are things that auditors can consider in advance. Our research found that:

Federal courts tend to be more favorable to auditors than state courts because federal judges are usually more sophisticated and knowledgeable about business matters.
Jurors with high levels of education and business experience are more likely to understand the technicalities of an audit and won’t be as swayed by emotional arguments. This means that if your client is headquartered in a city with a lot of college graduates and white-collar jobs, you’re less likely to face a runaway jury.
Jurors with a strong hometown bias are unlikely objective, and are more likely to side with a local company over an outside audit firm. This hometown bias can be a real problem, especially for smaller firms.

What can auditors do?

So, what can auditors do about all of this? The good news is that our research suggests there are several steps you can take.

During client acceptance, firms should:

Consider the potential trial venue and jury pool. It’s a little morbid to think about, but ask yourself, “If I were to be sued over this audit, where would the trial be held? What are the demographics and sophistication of the jury pool in that jurisdiction?” Auditors should incorporate these factors into their risk assessment and management processes.

And during the audit, you should:

Go beyond merely complying with auditing standards to minimize the possibility of errors or misstatements that could lead to litigation. This means taking a proactive approach to risk assessment and considering factors that might increase the likelihood of a lawsuit when planning an audit engagement, even if they aren’t explicitly required by the standards.
Be clear about the scope of the audit and your responsibilities in your engagement letter and throughout the engagement. Make sure the client understands what you are doing, what you are not doing, and the limitations of an audit. Document all communications with the client and make sure your workpapers clearly reflect the work that was done.
Write audit workpapers with potential litigation in mind. Use clear and concise language that a layperson could understand, and explain how your work meets the relevant auditing standards.

Beyond our findings, it’s also important to:

Consider engaging with trial consultants to help you assess your litigation risk in different jurisdictions and develop strategies for dealing with different types of juries.
Educate the public about auditing to dispel the common misconceptions about your role and responsibilities. The more people understand about what auditors do (and don’t do), the less likely they are to make unreasonable demands and file frivolous lawsuits.

By being aware of the legal context and planning ahead, you can better manage your litigation risk. This doesn’t mean you should drop clients with higher business risk, but it does mean you need to be aware of all the factors that can contribute to audit litigation risk and assess your ability to mitigate those risks. In doing so, you can continue to provide valuable services to your clients and protect the integrity of the financial reporting system.

The insights from our research make one thing abundantly clear: Focusing on compliance with auditing standards is not enough. To truly protect yourselves, your firms, and the investing public, auditors need to broaden their perspectives and develop a sophisticated understanding of the legal and social context in which they operate.

This requires auditors to be more proactive, more communicative, and more willing to challenge the status quo. Ultimately, the future of the profession may depend on your ability to adapt to the changing legal landscape and embrace a more holistic view of audit risk.

Accounting

House passes tax administration bills

Published

4 hours ago

April 1, 2025

Business Finance News

The House unanimously passed four bipartisan bills Tuesday concerning taxes and the Internal Revenue Service that were all endorsed this week by the American Institute of CPAs, and passed two others as well.

H.R. 1152, the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act, sponsored by Rep. Darin LaHood, R-Illinois, Suzan Delbene, D-Washington, Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, Brad Schneider, D-Illinois, Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pennsylvania and Jimmy Panetta, D-California. The bill would apply the “mailbox rule” to electronically submitted tax returns and payments to allow the IRS to record payments and documents submitted to the IRS electronically on the day the payments or documents are submitted instead of when they are received or reviewed at a later date. The AICPA believes this would offer clarity and simplification to the payment and document submission process while protecting taxpayers from undue penalties.
H.R. 998, the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act, sponsored by Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, and Brad Schneider, D-Illinois, which would require notices describing a mathematical or clerical error to be made in plain language, and require the Treasury to provide additional procedures for requesting an abatement of a math or clerical error adjustment, including by telephone or in person, among other provisions.
H.R. 517, the Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act, sponsored by Rep. David Kustoff, R-Tennessee, and Judy Chu, D-California. The process of receiving tax relief from the IRS following a natural disaster typically must follow a federal disaster declaration, which can often come weeks after a state disaster declaration. The bill would provide the IRS with authority to grant tax relief once the governor of a state declares either a disaster or a state of emergency and expand the mandatory federal filing extension under Section 7508(d) of the Tax Code from 60 days to 120 days, providing taxpayers with more time to file tax returns after a disaster.
H.R. 1491, the Disaster related Extension of Deadlines Act, sponsored by Rep. Gregory Murphy, R-North Carolina, and Jimmy Panetta, D-California, would extend the amount of time disaster victims would have to file for a tax refund or credit (i.e., the lookback period) by the amount of time afforded pursuant to a disaster relief postponement period for taxpayers affected by major disasters. This legislative solution would place taxpayers on equal footing as taxpayers not impacted by major disasters and would afford greater clarity and certainty to taxpayers and tax practitioners regarding this lookback period.

“The AICPA has long supported these proposals and will continue to work to advance comprehensive legislation that enhances IRS operations and improves the taxpayer experience,” said Melanie Lauridsen, vice president of tax policy and advocacy for the AICPA, in a statement Tuesday. “We are pleased to work closely with each of these Representatives on common-sense reforms that will benefit taxpayers, tax practitioners and tax administration and we’re encouraged by their passage in the House. We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to improve the taxpayer experience.”

The bills were also included in a recent Senate discussion draft aimed at improving tax administration at the IRS that are strongly supported by the AICPA.

The House also passed two other tax-related bills Tuesday that weren’t endorsed in the recent AICPA letter.

H.R. 1155, Recovery of Stolen Checks Act, sponsored by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-New York, would require the IRS to create a process for taxpayers to request a replacement via direct deposit for a stolen paper check. If a check is determined to be stolen or lost, and not cashed, a taxpayer will receive a replacement check once the original check is cancelled, but many taxpayers are having their replacement checks stolen as well. Taxpayers who have a check stolen are then unable to request that the replacement check be sent via direct deposit. The bill would require the Treasury to establish processes and procedures under which taxpayers, who are otherwise eligible to receive an amount by paper check in replacement of a lost or stolen paper check, may elect to receive such amount by direct deposit.
H.R. 997, National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act, sponsored by Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, would prevent IRS interference with National Taxpayer Advocate personnel by granting the NTA responsibility for its attorneys. In advocating for taxpayer rights, the National Taxpayer Advocate often requires independent legal advice. But currently, the staff members hired by the National Taxpayer Advocate are accountable to internal IRS counsel, not the Taxpayer Advocate, creating a potential conflict of interest to the detriment of taxpayers. The bill would authorize the National Taxpayer Advocate to hire attorneys who report directly to her, helping establish independence from the IRS.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Missouri, applauded the bipartisan House passage of the various bills, which had been unanimously passed by the committee.

“President Trump was elected on the promise of finally making the government work better for working people,” Smith said in a statement Tuesday. “This bipartisan legislation helps fulfill that mandate and makes improvements to tax administration that will make it easier for the American people to file their taxes. Those who are rebuilding after a natural disaster particularly need help filing taxes, which is why this set of bills lightens the load for taxpayers in communities struck by a hurricane, tornado or some other disaster. With Tax Day just a few days away, we must look for common-sense, bipartisan ways to make filing taxes less of a hassle.”

Accounting

In the blogs: Many hats

Published

5 hours ago

April 1, 2025

Business Finance News

Teaching fraud; easement settlement offers; new blog on the block; and other highlights from our favorite tax bloggers.

Many hats

Taxbuzz (https://www.taxbuzz.com/blog): There’s sure an “I” in this “teamwork:” What to know about potential IRS and ICE collaboration.
Tax Vox (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox): How IRS data would likely be unhelpful validating SNAP eligibility.
Yeo & Yeo (https://www.yeoandyeo.com/resources): How financial benchmarking (including involving taxes) can help business clients see trends, pinpoint areas for improvement and forecast future performance.
Integritas3 (https://www.integritas3.com/blog): One way to take a bite out of crime, according to this instructor blogger: Teach grad students how to detect, investigate and prevent financial fraud.
HBK (https://hbkcpa.com/insights/): Verifying income, fairly distributing property, digging the soon-to-be-ex’s assets out of the back of the dark, dark closet: How forensic accounting has emerged as a crucial element in divorces.

Standing out

Genuine intelligence

AICPA & CIMA Insights (https://www.aicpa-cima.com/blog): How artificial intelligence and other tech is “Reshaping Finance,” according to this podcast. Didem Un Ates, CEO of a U.K.-based company offering AI advisory services, tackles the topic.
Taxjar (https:/www.taxjar.com/resources/blog): How AI and automation can help even the knottiest sales tax obligations and problems.
Dean Dorton (https://deandorton.com/insights/): Favorite opening of the week: “The madness doesn’t just happen on college basketball courts — it also happens when your finance team is stuck using a legacy on-premises accounting system.”
Canopy (https://www.getcanopy.com/blog): Top client portals for accounting firms in 2025.
Mauled Again (https://mauledagain.blogspot.com/): Despite what Facebook claims, dependents have to be human.

New to us

Berkowitz Pollack Brant (https://www.bpbcpa.com/articles-press-releases/): This Florida firm offers a variety of services to many industries and has a good, wide-ranging blog. Recent topics include the BE-10, nexus and state and local tax obligations, IRS cuts and what to know about the possible bonus depreciation phase out. Welcome!

Accounting

Is gen AI really a SOX gamechanger?

Published

6 hours ago

April 1, 2025

Business Finance News

By streamlining tasks such as risk assessment, control testing, and reporting, gen AI has the potential to increase efficiency across the entire SOX lifecycle.