Accounting
The rise of the remote accounting firm partner
Published
2 years agoon

When Daren Daiga’s husband had to move to another state for his job, it looked at first like her time with CapinCrouse was over.
Daiga had worked for the Indianapolis-based firm since 2013, eventually growing into a valued senior tax manager who specialized in tax-exempt organizations. She liked the firm, the firm liked her — but then her husband’s job necessitated a move to Dayton, Ohio.
In other circumstances, Daiga would have had to start looking for work at firms in the Dayton area, but CapinCrouse was loath to let an experienced manager go and Daiga herself wasn’t keen on changing employers either. Eventually, they came to an agreement that allowed her to work as a fully remote senior manager, which she did for five years before finally being promoted to partner in 2022.
“To lose a manager who knows the work and who knows the training and who knows [how to] train people and have a big impact, that would have been difficult. … I love where I worked, so I could not imagine working anywhere else and since they were able to accommodate remote workers, even fully remote workers, well before COVID … we were able to make that transition,” she said.
Daiga is a remote partner, a designation becoming more common in the wake of the pandemic lockdowns. Like remote workers in general, remote partners at accounting firms are not necessarily new, but in recent years their numbers have certainly grown. While still rare compared to their onsite counterparts, the remote partner is no longer a novel curiosity but a key part of a changing professional landscape that, increasingly, extends beyond a firm’s local geography. Experts believe they make up about 5% of the total share of accounting firm partners; if one counts those who started as on-site partners and then went remote, the estimate grows to about 10-15%.
These leaders can be found all over the country, at firms big and small, working in a variety of different practice areas and possessed of a wide range of motivations for why they chose the path of the remote partner. Some, like Andrew Pitt, a Buffalo, New York-based tax partner with Los Angeles-headquartered Top 100 Firm GHJ, wanted to change firms and had some very specific needs that, in the end, could only be met by one over 3,000 miles away.
“I knew exactly what I was looking for, so I was targeting this specific position … In looking for firms, [a recruiter and I] decided to look outside Buffalo because we didn’t think we could find what we were looking for there,” he said, noting, “It really was the culture and diversity of leadership I was looking for.”
Tabatha Broussard, a Baton Rouge-based partner at Oklahoma-based Top 100 firm HoganTaylor, was also looking for a specific kind of practice. Having already been a partner at another firm for seven years, the shift to remote work during the lockdowns opened her eyes to the career possibilities. But she didn’t want to work remotely for just anyone— she specifically wanted a firm that matched her own expertise with the energy industry, and found that HoganTaylor was what she needed.
“I wanted the opportunity to work in the field I enjoy, which is the energy industry, and HT’s energy practice is impressively developed, stacked with exceptionally smart professionals serving exciting clients, so it was kind of like ‘check that mark right there,”’ she said.
For Vivian Gant, a partner at Florida-based De La Hoz, Perez & Barbeito, the reasons were more personal: two small children. Unlike other remote partners, she is not especially far from the office, just a half-hour drive, but the way her schedule worked with her family, it was much easier to go fully remote.
“[Younger people] maybe think public accounting is just going in and getting burnt out for a few years so it looks good on your resume, then work for a private company until you die; that is not necessarily what it can be, you can still be a mom, you can still do different things,” she said.
And sometimes people become remote partners without intending it. Tom Corfin, who lives in New Hampshire, was working at a firm in the Northeast when it was acquired in 2018 by Atlanta-based Top 100 Firm Aprio. Having already worked remotely for almost a decade prior, he was well positioned to be a leader when Aprio — which had already been supportive of remote work — leaned even harder into the position during the COVID lockdown. He was officially made partner at the beginning of January 2023. “Once the pandemic hit, I didn’t have to learn to be remote … It took me probably two solid years of figuring out how to turn the switch off, how to adjust internally, how to be outside the office, the whole mentality — most people had to figure this out during and after COVID, where I was already six years ahead of the curve,” he said.
The day to day
The remote partners we spoke with reported that, in terms of their day-to-day work, there are not that many differences between themselves and their onsite counterparts. More of their meetings are online versus in-person but much of the work is the same. This is because even on-site accountants are increasingly serving clients remotely, and even if they’re not, there is still a large degree of asynchronous communication (e.g., asking for and getting specific documentation) that generally does not require physical presence. For instance, Kevin Loiselle, a tax partner with Aprio based in the San Francisco area, noted that the firm’s German clients are handled out of the Atlanta office, which works with them remotely anyway.
“I think from a client perspective, it’s a lot of the same … Our German practice partners are based out of Atlanta and work primarily with contacts in Germany, so [the lead partner] is kind of in the same boat as me. She deals with calls primarily with clients around and in Germany,” he said, adding that his own client base primarily comes from Australia and New Zealand.
Daiga, from CapinCrouse, also said her day as a remote partner does not significantly differ from the day of an on-site one. The main difference is that, as a remote partner at a smaller firm, she does not have some of the office management responsibilities that others do. In fact, she is more struck by the differences between tax partners and audit partners than by remote versus onsite ones.
“Compared to the 20-plus audit partners, we have three tax partners, so not quite as many across the firm and clients. Because tax jobs are smaller jobs, you have more jobs you handle as a partner. But also audit partners who are on site may have some office management responsibilities I don’t have. … Otherwise, I don’t know if there’s a whole lot of difference,” she said.
Similarly, Gant, the DBP partner in Miami, said the main difference between being remote and being on-site as a partner is that it is easier to print things at the office. “The big thing there: I can print things. But that’s really the only difference. But I bought myself a big professional printer recently, so now I have that. There were also free sodas and coffee [at the office], but otherwise it was pretty much the same. I can do anything from my house that I can do from my office,” she said.
Remote partners raised similar points regarding partner meetings. None of them reported feeling especially left out of key communications and decisions among the firm leaders. Many said that this was because the partners would mostly meet online anyway, due to being dispersed among several offices. So while remote partners aren’t sitting in the conference room for partner meetings, neither are the on-site ones typically. Kimberly Hastings, a Colorado-based remote partner for LA-based HCVT, noted that this is largely due to the investment firms made in communications and collaboration technology.
“Technology is an amazing thing, so even when we have monthly partner meetings for various groups — I’m on multiple committees for the firm and I’m our practice lead — a lot of these calls are already happening via Teams or Zoom because you have people in different offices. So I work with partners out in Orange County, Encino, West LA, Westlake Village and southern Pasadena, so even if we were all in the office, we’d still be on Teams calls anyway since we all have different offices,” she said.
Not everything is exactly the same, though: Remote partners say they need to be more on top of maintaining connections than people who are in an office, seeing each other every day. Danielle McGee, a Michigan-based partner for Los Angeles-based Katz Cassidy, said that, as a remote leader who is responsible for managing remote staff, she needs to be more intentional in keeping contact with people, as there aren’t those serendipitous hallway moments in the office.
“Since I came on as a remote partner, we’ve hired a bunch of remote employees and now we have them in Nebraska, Colorado, Seattle and Texas. I tend to do a little more intentional outreach to them because I know if you don’t, it’s easy for someone to not feel connected. I probably do that more than the folks in the office,” she said, though she didn’t want to imply those on-site aren’t doing this as well. “They’re doing more outreach with folks in the office or folks who are local in LA.”
Hastings, the HCVT partner, raised a similar point, saying that as a remote partner she needs to be more proactive in maintaining communications than someone on site, though she also said on site partners also have to maintain contact with people too, so it’s not dramatically different.
“I do find I’m more intentional about connecting with my team because there isn’t seeing someone in the break room or scheduling a lunch. I didn’t want to lose that, because it’s really an amazing team and I want us to keep that … . But I’d hesitate to say that’s different from other partners since my team is spread out so much, so even if I were sitting in my office in Encino, I would still not be in the office with most people on most days,” she said.
Loiselle, the San Francisco-based Aprio partner, also said he had to slightly modify how he fulfills his staff development and coaching responsibilities, since he can’t be in the office all the time, focusing more on several large sessions a year versus lots of smaller day-to-day interactions.
“There is definitely a difference in terms of staff training and development because, obviously, I’m not in the office on a day-to-day basis where someone can just swing by and say, ‘I’ve got a question about this.’ … I do end up going to Atlanta several times a year to lead technical training for wider groups of people who all get together at our headquarters; that is one of the major differences I would see,” he said.
The future
The remote partner has gone from being almost unheard-of to appearing in firms across the country and, overall, those who currently occupy these positions see themselves as part of a wider trend. While technological enablement is one reason, another commonly mentioned factor is the talent shortage. More firms are experiencing difficulty finding qualified candidates in their local geographies, and so are increasingly opening their minds to remote workers who can be leaders in their organization.
“Talent is getting harder and harder to find in the accounting profession and the pipeline is shrinking and our clients are demanding more and more,” said Randy Nail, HoganTaylor’s CEO. “So we’ve got some good old supply and demand economics going on: Accounting firms need to serve their clients, and to do that you have to be open to finding talent in different places and figuring out how to make it work within their culture. We’re already doing that and will continue doing that, and I think other firms will as well.”
McGee raised a similar point by noting the declining number of accounting graduates but also added that there’s an increasing number of retirements in the field as well that is driving the greater acceptance of remote partners.
“Firms need to be open-minded to having employees that are remote. I think our field as a whole has to have trust in our employees to begin with. They have access to Social Security numbers and all sorts of personally identifiable information for our clients, so if we can trust our employees with that, we ought to be able to trust them to get their work done,” she said.
You may like
Accounting
SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know
Published
1 week agoon
August 25, 2026
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.
Accounting
AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks
Published
3 weeks agoon
August 15, 2026
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.
Accounting
Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance
Published
4 weeks agoon
August 9, 2026
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.
U.S.- Canada Trade Talks Collapse; Carney Says Retaliatory Tariffs Begin September 8
Flock Cameras and the Future of Public Security
AI Infrastructure Boom Hits Physical Limits: Power, Financing, and Supply Chain Strain
Armanino adds Strategic Accounting Outsourced Solutions
New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations
Tax Strategy: Employee Retention Credit update
Trending
-
Stock News1 week agoNvidia Q2 FY2027 Earnings beats Wall Street Expectation with Record $96.2 Billion Revenue
-
Technology5 days agoAI Infrastructure Boom Hits Physical Limits: Power, Financing, and Supply Chain Strain
-
Technology3 days agoFlock Cameras and the Future of Public Security
-
Economics3 days agoU.S.- Canada Trade Talks Collapse; Carney Says Retaliatory Tariffs Begin September 8
