• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Earmark CPE

Earmark CPE

Earn CPE Anytime, Anywhere

  • Home
  • App
    • Pricing
    • Web App
    • Download iOS
    • Download Android
    • Release Notes
  • Webinars
  • Podcast
  • Blog
  • FAQ
  • Authors
  • Sponsors
  • About
    • Press
  • Contact
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Archives for April 2026

She Tried to Sell Her Firm Three Times Before Moving It to a Beach in Mexico

Earmark Team · April 17, 2026 ·

Sandra Koch tried to sell her accounting firm three times over ten years. She was burned out and ready to quit. Today, she runs that same firm from a beach town in Mexico with dirt roads and one stop sign. And she’s never been happier.

In this episode of Who’s Really the Boss?, hosts Rachel and Marcus Dillon talk with Sandra, founder of Aurora Consulting Group. She shares her journey from owning a building in California to running her firm remotely from Baja California Sur. The conversation gets real about the anxiety of closing an office, the grief of letting go, and the unexpected freedom that followed.

The Dream Building That Had to Go

Sandra did everything by the book. She founded Aurora Consulting Group in San Diego in 2011 with one assistant. Three years later, she was juggling two offices—one in San Diego and one in Visalia, deep in California’s farmland. For 16 months, she went back and forth between the two locations. Eventually, she closed the San Diego office. “That wasn’t really working too well,” she admits.

Then came the building in Visalia. Sandra searched for a year before finding it. She bought it, remodeled it, and made it exactly what she wanted. “It was ego feeding, and it was a status symbol,” Sandra says on the podcast. She’s not embarrassed. It felt like success.

Marcus gets it. He grew up believing the ultimate achievement was having your name on a brick building where clients came to you. “That meant you made it,” he says. The day before recording this episode, Marcus and Rachel had just sold their own “forever building.”

By August 2023, reality hit Sandra hard. Clients weren’t coming to the office anymore. Some staff had moved away and were already remote. She was paying for an empty building.

“I wouldn’t wish the anxiety that I experienced during that time on anybody,” Sandra recalls. “But I knew it was the right thing to do.”

When Aurora Consulting Group went fully remote, Sandra was surprised by the grief she felt. “I had this dream, and then the dream kind of fell apart,” she explains. “Letting go of the dream felt like, wait, what do I do now?”

Marcus admits he also tends to remember only the good parts about having an office. You forget the commute, hiding from walk-in clients when you don’t have time, and dealing with frozen pipes. “I only remember the good days,” he says.

Sandra went through the same mental battle. “I’ll get sad about it. But then I’m like, Sandra, do the math. The math says it doesn’t make sense.”

A year after going remote, Sandra realized she could live anywhere. She wasn’t tied to Visalia or even California anymore. In 2024, she moved to Baja California Sur, Mexico, a coastal town with 1,800 people, dirt roads, and 25 varieties of whales passing by.

“The freedom I have from letting go of a physical location has been profound,” Sandra says. Every morning, she watches the sun rise over what Jacques Cousteau called “the world’s aquarium.”

She keeps a small office in Visalia for when she visits and has a part-time assistant who handles the occasional bank deposit. She learned some lessons the hard way, like discovering U.S. banks require a physical presence in the country to maintain accounts.

But that building with her name on it is gone, and she’s more proud of her firm now than ever.

Staying Close From 1,500 Miles Away

Going remote created new challenges. How do you stay connected to clients you genuinely care about? How do you keep a scattered team feeling like a team?

Sandra’s approach to clients is simple. She flies back three or four times a year and takes them to meals, one-on-one. No group events or presentations. Just food and conversation.

“I care about them and miss them. I want to see them just like I would want to see my family,” she explains. The one-on-one format is intentional. “That’s where the magic is. They tell me what’s really going on with them.”

Her clients’ warm response surprised her. They’re genuinely excited to see their CPA up in person.

Marcus shares a similar story. When a client who had sold his business invited Marcus to visit his farm, Marcus took him up on the offer and saw the excitement in the client’s eyes. They spent the day at the farm. No tax talk, just relationship building.

Building Team Culture Without an Office

Sandra’s team of six is spread across California and beyond. Her first remote hire four years ago turned out to be the right fit and set the standard for what worked.

Three things make remote work function, according to Sandra: training, culture, and communication. “You have to be religious about it,” she says.

The centerpiece is their Tuesday morning meeting at 10 a.m.. The key to this meeting is it’s not about work. The team shares what they need help with, their wins, and their struggles. Then they discuss their monthly book, with a $100 bonus for anyone who finishes it. They wrap up with “happies and crappies” (highs and lows).

Rachel points out that putting even modest money behind expectations shows the team you value the activity. “Start lower than you think,” she advises. “You can always increase an incentive, but it’s nearly impossible to reduce one.”

Sandra also discovered her team loves company swag. Nice jackets at Christmas had everyone excited. “It makes me realize they’re proud of the team they’re on,” she says.

In-person moments matter too. Sandra took the team to Intuit Connect in Las Vegas, where some team members met face-to-face for the first time. “They still talk about it,” she says. These investments show “I’m putting my money where my mouth is.”

As a result, Sandra believes she’s actually better at her job now.

“My clients get a better version of me,” she explains. “They get a less stressed-out version of me. I’m more present for them now because I’m not dealing with all the things attached to a physical location.”

The Science Experiment That Changed Everything

Sandra managed a lot of change in a short time period by changing how she thinks about trying new things.

“I used to think trying new things meant it would either succeed or fail,” she says. “When I changed to thinking ‘I’m doing a science experiment to see what happens,’ it really helped me.”

A science experiment doesn’t fail. It gives you data. You try something, see what happens, and decide whether to continue or pivot.

“I don’t have to commit to anything,” Sandra explains. “Not to software, not to a staff member, not to a client. When I go in thinking ‘I don’t have to commit, but I’m willing to try because I’m curious,’ it takes all the pressure off.”

This requires humility. You have to be honest about what’s working. Sandra’s team serves as a reality check, and her husband keeps her grounded when her curiosity pulls her in too many directions.

The results speak for themselves. “Our internal workflows went from practical nonexistence to a well-oiled machine very quickly,” Sandra says. “When something wasn’t working, we dropped it and went on to the next thing.”

Her 2026 goals show how far this mindset has taken her. Aurora has just three goals this year, down from 29 last year and 52 the year before. The three words: align, refine, and define. No big initiatives. Just steady improvement of what’s already working.

Finding Her People Made the Difference

Sandra credits one encounter with saving her firm. In November 2022, she heard Marcus speak at Intuit Connect. She got on the mailing list for Collective by DBA and signed up for their first in-person event.

“I heard a message of hope,” she remembers. “Aurora would not exist today if I hadn’t met you.”

Before that, she felt alone. Now, “I feel like I’m part of a community for the first time in my career,” she says. “A community that cares about me.”

She hasn’t missed a single Collective event. She brings team members. She reads every email, asks questions on the forum, and shares what she knows with others.

“It feels safe,” she explains. “I can be my messy self with you guys.”

When Rachel asks about her best advice, Sandra doesn’t hesitate: “Trust God, clean house, and help others.” Keep your side of the street clean. Look for opportunities to serve. Know you don’t have to control everything.

That philosophy carried a burned-out firm owner from trying to sell her practice to running it from a beach in Mexico. And she’s more proud of her work than she’s ever been.

Your Turn to Experiment

Sandra tried to sell her firm three times. Today, she wakes up to the sun rising over the Sea of Cortez and runs a thriving practice. Her transformation required questioning one assumption: What does a “real” accounting firm look like?

Here’s what she learned:

  • Physical space isn’t mental space. Without a building’s demands, Sandra became more present and effective. Her clients and team got a better version of her.
  • Remote doesn’t mean distant. One-on-one client visits, weekly team meetings that skip the work talk, book clubs with incentives, and company swag can build stronger connections than any conference room.
  • Make everything an experiment. Calling new initiatives “science experiments” removes the fear of failure. You’re just collecting data.
  • Nothing has to be permanent. You don’t have to commit to software, locations, or structures forever. Curiosity beats fear every time.

For every firm owner wondering if there’s a better way, Sandra’s story says yes. But only if you’re willing to run the experiment.

Listen to Sandra’s full conversation with Rachel and Marcus on Who’s Really the Boss? The details that don’t fit in an article make her story even more valuable for any firm considering remote work.


Rachel and Marcus Dillon, CPA, own a national, remote client accounting and advisory services firm, Dillon Business Advisors, with a team of 26 professionals. Their latest organization, Collective by DBA, supports and guides accounting firm owners and leaders with firm resources, education, and operational strategy through community, mastermind groups, and one-on-one advisory.

AI Agents Now Complete Tax Returns Start to Finish While the Government Can’t Even Audit Its Own Books

Earmark Team · April 13, 2026 ·

The US government just declared itself insolvent. AI agents are completing tax returns without human intervention. And the accounting profession is caught between these two massive disruptions.

In Episode 481 of The Accounting Podcast, hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary opened with a bombshell that somehow flew under the mainstream media radar. The Treasury Department’s own financial statements show the US is $42 trillion in the red, and that’s before counting Social Security and Medicare obligations. They then dove into an equally seismic shift with guest Kenji Kuramoto, founder of Acuity and newly appointed Managing Partner in Residence at AI company Basis, exploring how artificial intelligence is transforming every corner of the accounting world.

Deficit Spending Just Keeps Going

“It’s official. We are insolvent,” David announced at the start of the episode, referencing the Treasury’s 2024 financial statements. They show $6 trillion in total assets against nearly $48 trillion in total liabilities. That $42 trillion hole doesn’t even include the $88 trillion in unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations sitting off the balance sheet.

“Imagine a family making $52,000 that owes $1.3 million in a line of credit,” Blake said, putting the crisis in household terms.

Making matters worse, the Government Accountability Office issued a disclaimer of opinion for the 29th consecutive year, essentially saying it can’t even verify the accuracy of the numbers because the Department of Defense has never passed an audit.

“This is the reason a huge number of people voted for Trump,” David said. “They wanted to stop deficit spending, and it just keeps going.”

Meanwhile, AI Is Eating the Accounting Profession

While the government’s books are falling apart, AI companies are racing to automate the work of keeping everyone else’s books together. TaxGPT announced an AI agent capable of completing 1040 returns from start to finish without a preparer touching a keyboard or mouse. The tool works with existing web-based portals and tax prep software, pulling in W-2s, 1099s, and other source documents, then having a review agent double-check everything.

“Why go after tax pros?” David asked. “Just get in bed with the portal companies and go after TurboTax.”

Kenji, who recently joined Basis after selling Acuity and taking a year off, described watching AI agents handle complex accounting work that made him come out of retirement. “I saw an agent handle complex payroll entries like booking the GL entry, creating an accrual because the pay period didn’t align with month-end, posting the reversing entry for the following month, and building a complete set of work papers,” he said. “I saw this last year, and I was like, wait, what?”

The flood of AI announcements kept coming throughout the episode:

  • Ramp launched an accounting agent that auto-codes transactions down to the line-item level on invoices, claiming to save finance teams 40+ hours per month
  • Xero announced a multi-year partnership with Anthropic to integrate Claude AI directly into its platform
  • Canopy launched a bookkeeping module with AI that continuously reviews books and flags issues in real time
  • Double (formerly Keeper) released AI Journal Entries that can handle complex, repetitive entries from source documents
  • BILL announced agents for invoice coding, W-9 collection, and automated vendor payment responses

“Everyone thought we were boring,” Kenji said. “Look at this. All these Y Combinator companies spinning up and fundraising announcements and agents everywhere. Come on. Exciting.”

The Skills Gap Is Already Here

The shift is showing up in real time in hiring data. In 2023, only 18% of accounting job postings mentioned AI skills. Now it’s 30%, a 67% increase.

“The real-world requirement is probably 50%,” David argued. “People are behind on updating their postings.”

But a better question is what happens to the business model. Kenji described how at Acuity, the bottleneck was always people. Plenty of companies needed help with their books, but you couldn’t hire enough accountants to serve them cost-effectively. AI agents break that constraint. One highly efficient bookkeeper might handle 45 to 60 clients today. “Will one person eventually be able to handle 200 clients?” David asked.

The threat isn’t just from other firms. An article on Payments.com found that everyday taxpayers are already using ChatGPT and Gemini to do their taxes before ever talking to a professional. The reason is “speed and simplicity,” David explained. “AI can explain tax concepts, organize the documents, and suggest deductions. These are things they’re not getting from their tax professional.”

Are Tokens the New Billable Hour?

As AI cuts the time needed to complete work, firms are scrambling to figure out how to price their services. Bloomberg Law reported that PwC, KPMG, and RSM are all exploring alternatives to hourly billing.

“This may be the thing that finally gets us there,” Kenji said about moving away from billable hours. “If I just used AI to help me get my work done and I’m cutting down my billable hours, I’m losing revenue.”

“You can bill for tokens,” David suggested, offering a provocative alternative.

He then vented about Earmark’s own token consumption across multiple platforms, including Claude, GitHub Copilot, Retool, ChatGPT, and more. “Two days ago, an automation stopped working,” he said. “We spent five plus people hours trying to increase our tokens and get the automation working again.”

The problem is, token costs are opaque and growing. David introduced two terms gaining traction: “token anxiety,” or not knowing what you’re being charged for, and “AI FinOps,” managing AI costs across platforms.

“There’s an opportunity here for firms to become a token expert and offer it as a service,” David suggested.

Blake’s take was more pragmatic. “It’s better than timesheets, that’s for sure.”

The Window Is Closing

The government that sets the rules can’t even audit its own books while declaring itself insolvent. Meanwhile, AI agents are automating core accounting work at a pace that makes the shift from paper to computers look gradual.

“These agents are actually now becoming a component of our workforce,” Kenji said. “You’ve got accountants and you’ve got agents. This is the future state we’re moving into.”

For practitioners, it’s clear that the tools to dramatically expand your capacity exist right now. But so does the threat of clients going straight to AI and bypassing your firm entirely. The window to adapt is open, but it won’t stay that way for long.

As Blake noted about current AI pricing, “When Uber was new, everything was really, really cheap.” The subsidies won’t last forever. To thrive, firms need to figure out the new economics now, whether that’s value pricing, token billing, or something else entirely. Those that don’t may find themselves as obsolete as the government’s ability to balance its own books.

Listen to the full episode for the complete discussion, including deeper dives into specific AI capabilities and Kenji’s firsthand perspective from inside an AI-native company.

Why Women in Accounting Keep Losing Credit for Their Own Ideas

Earmark Team · April 13, 2026 ·

Nancy McClelland is sitting at her desk when a WhatsApp message lights up her phone. It’s a screenshot from her friend Dymond with a simple question, “Aren’t those your slides?”

They are. A live QB Power Hour session was using the distinctive slide deck Nancy used for three-plus years of 1099 presentations, the one she built, refined season after season, and shared with co-presenters last year. She wasn’t even invited to the session. She later learned presenters were making edits to her slides even five minutes before going live.

“The heat just came up to my head and my face, and it felt like it exploded out the top of my head,” Nancy says, describing her physical reaction on a recent episode of She Counts, the real-talk podcast for women in accounting she co-hosts with Questian Telka. “I got a little shaky and I was just furious.”

This moment became the catalyst for a candid discussion of how women’s intellectual work gets absorbed, reused, and reattributed in the accounting profession, and what if anything we can do about it.

When Credit Disappears, So Does Opportunity

When your slides show up in someone else’s presentation or someone repeats your idea in a meeting as if it were their own, it’s not just about bruised feelings. It’s a systematic pattern affecting women’s advancement in accounting.

“When credit is taken away, it doesn’t just affect that one person,” Nancy explains. “If we don’t enforce these boundaries, it affects all of us.”

The impact goes beyond individual harm. As Questian points out, it “prevents diversity of thought” because when people repeatedly lose credit for their work, they stop creating and contributing. The entire profession loses out on those perspectives.

Nancy isn’t early in her career or insecure. She’s a recognized expert in 1099 compliance who’s been writing for MSN and speaking on the topic for four years. If it can happen to her, it can happen to anyone. And it does, repeatedly, from barely perceptible “borrowing” to blatant theft.

The Full Spectrum of “Borrowed” Ideas

Credit theft ranges from literally reusing your slide deck to repeating your idea without reference, seconds after you said it in a meeting. Understanding that spectrum matters because most of the harm lives in the gray areas where it’s hardest to call out.

Nancy’s QB Power Hour story falls at the blatant end. Last year, she co-hosted an episode with Rich Kane, volunteering her existing deck for the session. This year, the same session ran with her slides but without her. When Jennifer Dymond and Sharrin Fuller recognized the slides, they called it out in the live chat. Nancy fired off an email, deliberately replying to the original thread where she’d shared the deck to make the paper trail unmistakable.

Dan DeLong, the host, responded quickly and apologetically. He said it hadn’t occurred to him that reusing the slides was a problem. He’d just grabbed last year’s deck and asked Rich to update it.

“I named plagiarism and he responded with process failure,” Nancy says. That gap between how women name harm and how it gets institutionally reframed is crucial. As Questian points out, “You can plagiarize work without it being intentional.”

But this wasn’t Nancy’s first experience with credit theft. Earlier in her speaking career, she applied to present at the National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives conference. To add “credibility,” they paired her with their head of education as co-presenter.

Nancy created everything, including slides, research, citations, and examples. When presentation day arrived, her co-presenter had her sit at a table beside the podium while he stood at the podium for the entire session. At one point, he gestured to the screen and said, “When I prepared this slide…”

“I just swung toward him and looked up and my jaw dropped,” Nancy recalls. She wanted to correct the record but wondered, “How much of this do I say out-loud? I don’t know how it’s gonna reflect on me.”

The session was popular enough to warrant a journal article, but only if Nancy listed him as co-author. She refused, offering instead to properly cite his prior article that inspired her research. The publication was denied entirely.

“The lesson I took away from that is you can have exposure or you can have ownership, but you can’t have both,” Nancy says.

Questian’s experiences with credit theft have been on the subtler end of the spectrum. She regularly shares ideas in meetings only to have someone repeat them moments later and receive the credit. “It’s happened to me so much in my life that I’ve just gotten used to it,” she admits. Recently, her partner witnessed it happen multiple times in a single social setting and was stunned.

Then there are the gray areas. After She Counts launched, Questian noticed another female podcaster using specific language and ideas from their episodes. It happened at least three times, but rather than confront it, Questian stopped watching that person’s content. “I have this fear of calling out and hurting someone’s professional reputation,” she explains.

“When is it theft and when is it overlap?” Nancy asks. That’s the question at the center of most situations. The blatant cases are easy to identify, but most credit erosion happens where you know something is off but can’t quite prove it.

Why Credit Systematically Drifts Away from Women

If these were isolated incidents, the solution would be simple. But women often don’t receive credit for their ideas because of deeply embedded biases and hierarchies that operate even when everyone has good intentions.

Nancy discusses the Matilda effect, a term for the systematic under-crediting of women in science. The examples are staggering: Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray crystallography was central to understanding DNA’s structure, but the Nobel Prize went to James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins. Jocelyn Bell Burnell discovered the first radio pulsars as a graduate student, but the Nobel went to her supervisor. Lise Meitner’s work was key to understanding nuclear fission, but Otto Hahn got the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

“This kind of thing has been happening so much and for so long in science that they actually have a name for it,” Nancy explains.

In accounting, the angle is different but equally problematic. “So much of our work is process, systems, teaching, and translation,” Nancy notes. “Those kinds of things are generally more likely to be reused without attribution. They’re more likely to be absorbed rather than credited, even though they’re highly valuable for our profession.”

Higher-status individuals are disproportionately credited as sources of ideas, regardless of who introduced them. As Nancy explains, “Men are often assumed to be the owner of knowledge and women, the contributors.”

Questian adds another layer, referencing Vanessa Van Edwards’ research on competence versus warmth. “If you are perceived as too warm, you can then be perceived as less competent, even though you are often still highly competent,” she explains. People who are naturally collaborative are especially vulnerable. The very qualities that make you a great colleague make you easy to overlook.

There’s also source confusion. People remember ideas better than where they heard them. Nancy’s experience with Jason Staats illustrates this. She’d discussed her Ask a CPA community with him, specifically about bridging tensions between bookkeepers and tax professionals, and shared her community plans in a class he taught. Weeks later, he posted about the exact topic without attribution. When multiple people tagged Nancy in the comments and she emailed him, Jason explained he’d forgotten the connection.

The consequences are real. And women who claim their credit are evaluated more negatively than men exhibiting the same behavior. “I don’t want people to think I’m a bitch,” Nancy admits, “but that’s how I feel like I am viewed.”

The Power of Collective Action

What works most effectively to combat idea theft is having someone else see it and say something.

Dymond and Sharrin called out Nancy’s slides in the live chat. Multiple community members tagged Nancy when Jason posted about her topic. Nicole Davis reached out directly to address a perceived overlap. Her partner pointed out that Questian had just made the same point. In every case where things went right, it was collective action.

“When we speak up for each other, two things happen,” Nancy explains. “We make it safer for someone else to name harm, and we actually retrain our nervous systems to recognize that just because something is uncomfortable and we speak out about it, it doesn’t mean we’re overreacting.”

The hosts offer practical strategies:

  • Say names out loud. When discussing ideas, credit the source. For example, Nancy notes Debra Kilsheimer is the one who told her about the Matilda Effect.
  • Men have a specific role. When someone repeats an idea in a meeting, men can simply say, “That’s what Questian just told us.” It requires attention, not heroism.
  • Address it directly when it happens to you. Nancy emailed using the original thread where she’d shared her slides, making the trail clear. “We’ve gotta say these things out-loud because maybe there’s a misunderstanding,” she explains.
  • Speak up when you see it happening to others. Reduce someone else’s risk by lending your voice. Tag creators in comments. Mention names in chat.
  • Handle misunderstandings with grace. Nicole provides the model. She spoke up when she thought her work had been borrowed. Nancy explained the timeline, shared evidence, and Nicole graciously acknowledged the misunderstanding. They agreed to co-present on the topic later that year. 

The episode closes with three essential questions:

  1. Where are you sharing work that represents your expertise?
  2. Who benefits when your name is removed?
  3. What would change if you treated your ideas as assets instead of favors?

Your Name Belongs on Your Work

Credit theft in accounting isn’t about villains. It’s about a system where biases and expectations consistently funnel attribution away from women, even recognized experts, and even when people have good intentions.

The same number of women enter the accounting profession as men, but they don’t make Partner at the same rate. So the systematic erasure of women’s intellectual contributions isn’t minor. Every uncredited slide deck, repeated idea, or template passed around without attribution chips away at professional capital women need to advance.

Nancy closes with a quote from Virginia Woolf: “For most of history, Anonymous was a woman.”

In accounting, it doesn’t have to stay that way.

Listen to the full episode of She Counts and share your own story on the She Counts LinkedIn page. Have you ever had your work passed off as someone else’s? The more we name it, the harder it becomes to ignore.

The IRS Now Knows Who’s Trading Crypto But Can’t Tell What Anyone Owes

Earmark Team · April 7, 2026 ·

The IRS now knows who’s trading crypto, but it still can’t tell if anyone owes tax. That’s the reality of the new 1099-DA reporting system that just went live, and it’s about to affect every tax professional with crypto clients.

On a recent episode of the Earmark Podcast, host Blake Oliver sat down with Lawrence Zlatkin, Vice President of Tax at Coinbase, to explain what the new 1099-DA form reports, where the gaps are, and what changes Coinbase is pushing for in Washington. With a front-row seat to crypto taxation’s biggest challenges, Lawrence offered insight on where the system works (and where it doesn’t).

The problem is that the IRS’s new reporting brings crypto tax enforcement into the mainstream, but the underlying framework creates massive overreporting with little tax benefit. Treating stablecoins as property and requiring reports on tiny gas fees generates millions of forms that tell the government almost nothing about actual tax liability. Tax professionals must bridge the gap between what the IRS receives and what matters for computing taxes.

The 1099-DA: What’s There and What’s Missing

Think of the 1099-DA as crypto’s version of the 1099-B that brokers send for stock trades. The basic concept is familiar: the form goes to your client and the IRS, and the government matches what taxpayers report against what exchanges report. Tax pros have worked with this system for decades.

But this first-year version is bare-bones. As Lawrence explained, “We are implementing the system barely 18 months after Congress issued the regulations. The 1099-B system was developed over a period of five years, and even longer for gross proceeds.”

The result is a “skeletal version” that reports just two things: who the customer is and their gross proceeds from transactions. The critical missing piece is cost basis.

“We’re including basis for our customers for informational purposes, but that information is not actually going to the government,” Lawrence said. Next year, exchanges will start reporting basis, but only when they have it.

Blake walked through a simple example. Say your client sells Bitcoin for $100. The IRS gets a 1099-DA showing $100 in gross proceeds. But if your client bought that Bitcoin for $90, the actual taxable gain is just $10. That $10 is the only number that matters for taxes, but it’s invisible to the government this year.

The problem worsens with transfers between wallets and exchanges. When crypto leaves Coinbase for a self-custody wallet or another exchange, the basis tracking breaks. “The only person who knows what’s in a non-custodial wallet is you because you’re the owner,” Lawrence explained. When that crypto returns to an exchange, there’s no way to reconstruct what happened in between.

So what’s the point of all this reporting? Lawrence was candid. “The government’s concern has been that there’s been underreporting and noncompliance in the ecosystem generally. So what this achieves from their standpoint is they find out who’s really participating.”

Until now, the IRS’s only crypto signal was that checkbox on the 1040, which Lawrence diplomatically called “gobbledygook.” It asks about digital asset transactions. Now the IRS will see actual dollar amounts attached to names. They’ll spot whales with millions in proceeds. They’ll identify non-filers.

“There’s nothing nefarious or awful or evil about that,” Lawrence said. “It’s just that they will have that information they didn’t otherwise have before.”

The practical takeaway is, “you are in control of your tax data,” Lawrence emphasized. Clients who consolidate their activity on a single exchange will have better records. Coinbase provides transaction history and gain/loss data through its “position service.” But clients bouncing between exchanges and wallets need to maintain their own records. Nobody else can do it for them.

The Stablecoin Problem: When Property Isn’t Property

Missing basis data would be manageable if the tax framework made sense. It doesn’t, especially for stablecoins.

Since 2014, the IRS has classified all crypto as property rather than currency or cash equivalents. This includes stablecoins like USDC, which are designed to trade at exactly $1. Every time your client uses USDC, that’s a reportable disposition of property.

“Stablecoins are designed to be stable and consistent and traded at par with the US dollar,” Lawrence said. “99.9% of the time, it’s intended to trade within a fraction of a decimal of the US dollar. So in essence, we’re not reporting a gain or loss. So it’s over-reporting of data. There’s no fundamental purpose for that. I would argue that the only reason for that is surveillance.”

The scale is significant. Coinbase must report stablecoin transactions exceeding $10,000 to the government. Hundreds of thousands of customers received 1099s this year that include these transactions. And taxpayers must report even smaller amounts. Coinbase just won’t tell the IRS about those.

Blake offered his own example. Earmark uses USDC to pay vendors for international transactions where stablecoins are faster than traditional banking. Under current rules, every payment is a reportable property disposition. “It’s as if the IRS got every bank transaction,” Blake said. “Americans would never stand for that. We’d call that surveillance and overreach.”

Lawrence revealed this isn’t hypothetical. Five years ago, the Treasury Department proposed requiring banks to report credit card transactions over $10,000 in aggregate. “That was quashed for the reasons you just described,” he said. Yet here we are with stablecoins.

There’s a small silver lining. “The tax system is based on income. If there’s no gain or loss, there’s no taxable income, and there’s no penalty,” Lawrence explained. You can’t underpay taxes on zero gain. But the reporting requirement still exists.

De Minimis Madness: When Pennies Become Paperwork

Beyond stablecoins, tiny transactions that generate enormous paperwork are another reporting nightmare.

Gas fees, which are the network costs for blockchain transactions, often involve disposing of pennies or fractions of dollars worth of Ethereum. Each one is technically a property disposition that must be tracked and reported. Each might have actual (if microscopic) gain or loss.

The volume is staggering. Coinbase files millions of 1099-DAs containing hundreds of millions of underlying transactions that feed into Form 8949. Lawrence estimates that about half qualify as de minimis, meaning they’re essentially meaningless for tax purposes.

“We’re not going to pave roads and solve the deficit on the backs of de minimis reporting for crypto,” Lawrence argued. He’s pushing for a threshold below which transactions become exempt from reporting or taxation. Should it be $5? $50? $200? Should it be income-based or transaction-based?

“At what point do we stop requiring reporting for transactions?” Lawrence asked. “If the IRS gets bombarded with billions of transactions that are tiny in nature because people are required to report them, the system itself breaks.”

These billions of transactions are being reported today, and the IRS’s ancient computer systems must somehow process them all.

The Washington Agenda: Common Sense Reforms in Political Gridlock

Lawrence came with a clear policy agenda that included ten priorities, although the conversation covered highlighted six in detail.

Beyond stablecoins and de minimis thresholds, Coinbase is pushing for the following reforms:

  • Crypto lending should work like securities lending. “You’re not disposing of crypto because you’re going to get the same amount back,” Lawrence explained. Under current securities rules, that’s not taxable. Crypto should be the same.
  • Staking rewards timing. The IRS says rewards are taxable when received. Others argue they shouldn’t be taxed until sold. “That’s a source of friction and debate,” Lawrence noted.
  • Charitable deductions are perhaps the clearest absurdity. Donate over $5,000 in Bitcoin, and you need a formal appraisal. “You can type it in Google and get a Bitcoin price, just like you get the price of any stock or security,” Lawrence said. Bitcoin has “readily ascertainable fair market value.” The appraisal requirement is “ridiculous.”
  • Foreign investment rules. The US has safe harbors that allow non-US persons to trade securities through US brokers without triggering US tax. No equivalent exists for crypto. “We’re the best and safest market in the world,” Lawrence said. “We’d like to preserve that for crypto, not just for regular old investment assets.”

So why hasn’t anything passed?

“I’m cautiously optimistic,” Lawrence said. President Trump has been supportive. He met with Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong last week. The White House issued a report on digital assets, including tax provisions. Treasury has been “by and large very supportive.”

But Congress is the bottleneck. The House is narrowly Republican-controlled, and crypto has become more partisan than it should be. “This should not be a partisan debate,” Lawrence insisted. “This ecosystem benefits Democrats and Republicans.”

The Clarity Act for crypto regulation is under discussion. So is broader tax reform. But as Lawrence diplomatically put it, “Things don’t move as quickly as we might like in Washington.”

What This Means for Tax Professionals

The picture Lawrence painted is clear, even if the rules aren’t. The 1099-DA tells the IRS who’s trading and how much, but it lacks the cost basis needed to determine actual tax liability. Tax professionals must fill that gap by reconciling gross proceeds against basis records scattered across exchanges, wallets, and spreadsheets.

Meanwhile, classifying stablecoins as property without de minimis rules creates millions of reportable transactions with zero tax consequences. It’s all noise, no signal.

The reforms Coinbase wants make sense. But with narrow Congressional majorities and partisan friction, don’t expect relief before next filing season.

The message for practitioners is crypto is no longer niche. With millions of 1099-DAs arriving and IRS matching letters sure to follow, you need to understand what these forms show, how to help clients track basis, and where the traps are. Firms that build this expertise now will serve a growing client base. Those who don’t risk being blindsided along with their clients.

“Everyone wants to talk about tax,” Lawrence joked at the start. By the end, it’s clear why. The intersection of crypto and tax is where innovation meets regulation, and right now, regulation is playing catch-up.

Listen to the complete episode of the Earmark Podcast for Lawrence’s full breakdown of Coinbase’s policy priorities and practical advice on basis tracking. You can earn free NASBA-approved CPE credit by listening and taking a short quiz at earmarkcpe.com.

Fake Auditor Conclusions, Fabricated Board Minutes, and the Growing Cracks in Accounting’s Trust Infrastructure

Earmark Team · April 6, 2026 ·

A compliance startup allegedly sold hundreds of companies fake SOC 2 reports complete with made-up auditor conclusions and board meeting notes that never happened. In Florida, legislators nearly abolished the state’s Board of Accountancy entirely. And AI companies now run ads that sound exactly like QuickBooks marketing copy.

These are just some of the topics Blake Oliver and David Leary tackled in their latest episode of The Accounting Podcast. The hosts dug into stories that show the systems meant to ensure trust in accounting face threats from multiple angles.

The (Alleged) SOC 2 Scandal

“This is wild,” Blake said, thanking a listener for sending him a detailed investigation about Delve, a VC-backed compliance startup. The company allegedly created fake SOC 2 reports at scale, using what the hosts described as a disturbing playbook.

According to a Substack series Blake reviewed, Delve’s platform pre-populated everything from policies to evidence and even independent auditor conclusions. The company then allegedly routed these pre-written reports through audit firms that simply rubber-stamped them.

“These are allegations. I have not independently verified any of this,” Blake was careful to note. “This is a very in-depth Substack report by an anonymous poster. So we should take this with a grain of salt.”

But the details were alarming. The investigation claimed to find board meetings that never happened, security simulations that were never performed, and trust pages showing controls as “implemented” before any actual work was done. Companies had written policies claiming they had mobile device management, VPNs, and intrusion detection systems, even though they had none of these.

The author analyzed 322 public Delve trust pages and found that 321 showed the exact same SOC 2 control set, which seems odd for supposedly customized compliance programs.

“The logo you get is an AICPA logo, right? You’re getting a stamp of approval from the AICPA,” David said, cutting to the heart of the problem. “Is the AICPA checking on all these badges that are on company websites?”

Blake explained how easy it would be to game the system. “All you have to do is find a firm willing to sign off without actually doing the work,” he said, comparing it to the BF Borgers case in Colorado, where a CPA firm was caught signing off on audits it never performed.

“This is the problem with assurance,” Blake continued. “If you have a few bad actors willing to just sign off, sign off, sign off, they can make a lot of money. And how do they get caught? And if they get caught, what happens?”

Florida Almost Killed Its Board of Accountancy

While fake compliance reports threaten the profession from within, Florida’s legislature almost destroyed a key piece of regulatory infrastructure from the outside.

House Bill 607 would have eliminated the Florida Board of Accountancy along with other professional licensing boards as part of a sweeping deregulation push. The Florida Institute of CPAs called it “the most serious threat to the profession in decades.”

“How do you regulate the CPA in Florida?” Blake asked, explaining the stakes. Without a Board of Accountancy, there’s no enforcement mechanism, no oversight, and no one to investigate bad actors.

The bill moved quickly through two committees before being stopped. But victory came at a cost. To focus on defeating the bill, FICPA had to table its own effort to create alternative pathways to CPA licensure that would have allowed candidates to qualify with 120 credit hours instead of 150.

The irony wasn’t lost on the hosts. Florida was the first state to implement the 150-hour rule. Now, while about 30 states have approved alternative pathways, efforts to defend against total deregulation have sidelined reforms.

“We want to streamline licensure, but we don’t want it to go away,” Blake said. “We’ve got folks who want too much regulation, and then we’ve got folks who want no regulation. There’s got to be a middle ground here.”

David predicted this won’t be the last such attempt. “I imagine we’re probably going to see more pushes for this because people are going to want the big, huge AI companies to have their AI do CPA work without a license in the way.”

When AI Ads Look Like QuickBooks Ads

Speaking of AI companies, David discovered something unsettling through a targeted LinkedIn ad. Anthropic is marketing “Claude for Finance” using language that sounds exactly like traditional accounting software.

The ad promised to handle recurring financial workflows, organize receipts into clean spreadsheets, build quarterly revenue models, and cross-reference documents for month-end close.

“Third-party app developers and accountants and CPAs that use Claude essentially trained the model so they could just take everybody out of the middle,” David explained. He compared it to how the iPhone camera evolved. At first, you needed third-party apps for filters and editing. Now it’s all built in.

The hosts also discussed a Wall Street Journal article about how regular people are already using AI for tax work. Examples ranged from using Copilot to model Roth conversions to having AI explain confusing IRS notices. One person used Gemini to value charitable donations for their tax return.

“The takeaway is they’re avoiding getting an accountant or a tax professional,” David said bluntly.

But the technology isn’t perfect. One user found that Grok gave wrong answers about capital gains tax until he rephrased his question. A retired tax preparer tested ChatGPT on an IRS volunteer certification exam, and ChatGPT failed.

This leads to what David called the “fact check tax,” a term from Anthropic’s own survey. “An assistant that sounds sure but is often wrong forces you to treat everything as suspect. Instead of freeing attention, AI creates a permanent fact-check tax.”

The Bigger Picture

These stories paint a picture of a profession under pressure from multiple directions. Fake compliance reports undermine the attestation model. Deregulation efforts threaten the licensing framework. AI platforms are positioning themselves as replacements rather than tools.

As Blake noted about AI, “It’s going to be really hard for Intuit and Xero to keep up unless they’re just plugging into ChatGPT or into Claude. How can their own AI chatbots keep up with what these companies are doing, and how fast they’re developing?”

For accounting professionals, these are challenges that require attention and action. Listen to the full episode of The Accounting Podcast to hear Blake and David discuss these stories and more. 

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Go to Next Page »

Copyright © 2026 Earmark Inc. ・Log in

  • Help Center
  • Get The App
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Press Room
  • Contact Us
  • Refund Policy
  • Complaint Resolution Policy
  • About Us