Earmark CPE

Earn CPE Anytime, Anywhere

Earmark Team

The Business Case for Leading with Heart in a Numbers-Driven World

· ·

Dawn Brolin’s accounting firm partners told her she was fat. They criticized her for wearing the same clothes repeatedly. And when she tore her meniscus at the gym, they made her drive herself to the hospital with explicit instructions to be at work the next morning.

This wasn’t a scene from a workplace horror story. This was real life for a CPA who would later become one of accounting’s most passionate advocates for empathetic leadership. In a recent episode of the She Counts podcast, Brolin opened up to hosts Nancy McClelland and Questian Telka about the raw experiences she shares in her new book, “The Elevation of Empathy,” revealing how toxic leadership nearly broke her, and ultimately shaped her understanding of what authentic leadership looks like.

What makes Brolin’s story particularly powerful is that she doesn’t just talk about being a victim of empathy-free leadership. She also admits to her own failures and how she learned to recover from them. Her journey shows embracing empathy as a strategic advantage, rather than hiding emotional intelligence to appear “tough enough,” creates stronger teams and better business outcomes.

Before we dive deeper, if this topic triggers any emotions or struggles you’re facing, there is help available. The Crisis Text Line offers confidential professional mental health assistance: just text HOME to 741741.

When Leadership Lacks Heart: The Partnership from Hell

Brolin’s partnership nightmare wasn’t just about bad bosses. It was a masterclass in how the absence of empathy destroys people and businesses from the inside out.

At the time, Brolin was one of three partners in the firm. She brought in most of the clients, and was working to support her young family as the primary breadwinner. She was genuinely excited about building something meaningful. Then reality hit.

“There was zero empathy in that firm,” Brolin recalls. “None whatsoever.”

Because Brolin wasn’t yet a CPA, her partners—both women—relegated her to answering phones and fetching lunch, despite her being the primary rainmaker. The real cruelty went deeper than professional dismissal. They systematically attacked her personally, criticizing her weight and mocking her clothing choices.

The gym incident is an image of empathy-free leadership: when Brolin tore her meniscus during a step aerobics class they’d all attended together, she found herself writhing in pain on the gym floor. Her partners’ response? Figure it out yourself.

“I somehow dragged myself down to the office, and now I need to get to the hospital,” Brolin remembers. “And they were like, ‘All right, well, you’re gonna have to drive yourself to the hospital and make sure you’re at work tomorrow morning.'”

With a torn meniscus.

This wasn’t leadership, it was systematic dehumanization. The partners were creating a culture where employees watched this treatment and learned that success meant crushing others. “I watched how they treated the employees,” Brolin explains. “It wasn’t just me.”

But Brolin made a crucial decision in that toxic environment. Instead of absorbing these behaviors as normal, she used the experience as a reverse blueprint. “I was never going to do that as an employer,” she realized.

When the Empathy Champion Falls Short: Brolin’s Coaching Confession

Here’s what makes Brolin’s story so honest and powerful: she advocates for empathy and admits when she’s failed at it herself.

As a softball coach known as “The Designated Motivator,” Brolin poured her soul into her players. She made it her mission to be inclusive, to make every kid feel appreciated and loved. Then three players transferred to another school.

“My empathy went out the window,” Brolin admits. “I was devastated that they left. I poured my soul into them, and I was like, ‘You’re leaving me.’”

Instead of considering why these kids might have needed to transfer, Brolin took it personally. She withdrew her care and support from them completely. “That was so wrong,” she reflects.

But here’s the beautiful part: Brolin recognized her mistake and fixed it. About a year later, she went to each of the three kids and apologized.

“I want you to know something. This is an epic fail on my part, not yours,” she told them. She gave them permission not to forgive her, making it clear the apology was about them, not about making herself feel better.

They forgave her. Now they text regularly.

“My point in saying that is, for those people who have been unempathetic to an individual, you can fix that,” Brolin explains. “You can go to a person, and admit you messed up.”

In short, empathy isn’t about being perfect. It’s about recognizing your failures, owning them, and doing better.

Empathy as Your Secret Business Weapon

The accounting profession has operated under a fundamental misunderstanding: that empathy equals weakness. Brolin’s experiences prove exactly the opposite.

“Empathy doesn’t mean you’re soft,” Brolin emphasizes. “As a matter of fact, I think it’s a superpower.”

The American Psychological Association defines empathy as understanding a person from their frame of reference rather than your own. This breaks down into two skills: cognitive empathy (logically understanding someone’s perspective) and emotional empathy (actually feeling what they feel).

In business terms, this translates to measurable advantages that accounting firms can’t ignore. The research is overwhelming: empathetic leaders drive stronger team performance, higher retention rates, sharper decision-making, increased innovation, and improved mental health across their organizations.

“When leaders have empathy, people gravitate to that leader more than they do to a leader who doesn’t have empathy,” Brolin explains.

Consider Brad Smith, former CEO of Intuit, who Brolin cites as one of her favorite leaders. At industry conferences, Smith would stop mid-stride when he saw familiar faces, remembering personal details about employees’ families and asking about their daughters’ college plans.

“That is a leader who has empathy, who cares about other people by his actions more than his words,” Brolin notes. “They don’t superficially care about you because it’s going to give them an advantage. They care about you because of you.”

Being appointed to a leadership position doesn’t automatically make someone a leader. True leadership requires the ability to connect with and understand the people you’re leading. When your employees trust that you see them as whole humans rather than just billable resources, they bring their full creative potential to work.

The Burden Women Carry (And Why Men Need to Step Up Too)

Women in accounting firms often carry the invisible emotional labor of our workplaces. According to a 2023 Deloitte report, 51% of women say they’re expected to manage team wellbeing, compared to only 27% of men.

Telka knows this intimately. “I think about things like birthday gifts for colleagues or cards that have to be signed or someone’s ill and they need to be sent flowers,” she explains. “It often fell on me, probably because I was the most empathetic. The men were never the ones who were driving those situations.”

McClelland captures this perfectly with her favorite greeting card: “The front of the card says, ‘Happy birthday, from us.’ Inside: ‘But I think you know who went out and bought the card and wrote it and addressed it—and who just put the stamp on it.’”

But Brolin believes many men in the industry are more empathetic than we realize. “They’re just not being intentional about it,” she says. Take Randy Crabtree, who wrote the foreword to Brolin’s book, or Mike Paine, who told Telka, “I really want to help women in the field. Help me understand what the problem is and tell me what I can do, then I’m here for it.”

“And that’s empathy,” McClelland points out. “That is empathy right there.”

Learning to Accept What You Give: The Hardest Lesson

For Brolin, one of the biggest challenges has been learning to accept empathy, not just give it.

“People think because I keep going, I don’t hurt,” Brolin shares. “Let me be very clear. I hurt, and I keep going.”

Women leaders often become so focused on caring for others that they struggle to let others care for them. When Kellie Parks called after reading Brolin’s vulnerable Mother’s Day post, Brolin’s instinct was to deflect and hang up quickly.

Instead, she made a conscious choice to receive Parks’ empathy. “I let myself listen to what Kellie had to say and gave some space in my soul.”

McClelland offered Brolin a reframe that many women leaders need to hear: “Would you want me to hide my pain to protect you?” When Brolin said of course not, McClelland continued, “It’s an honor to have you turn to me when you need help. So if you ask for help, you’re showing us the same respect.”

As McClelland puts it, the goal is “unconditional love, but conditional involvement”—staying open to authentic connection while maintaining boundaries about what treatment you’ll accept.

Practical Tools for Building Your Empathy Muscle

Brolin offers specific practices for developing empathy as a leadership skill:

  • Practice mindfulness to build awareness. When you talk to someone, be truly present in that conversation. This is especially challenging at conferences with distractions everywhere, but it’s worth the effort.
  • Ask questions without making assumptions. Go into conversations with a blank slate rather than preconceived notions about what someone will say. As Telka notes, “Most of the time if I don’t make assumptions, things turn out much more positively.”
  • Pay attention to nonverbal cues. What are people not saying out-loud that you should consider asking about?
  • Ask for feedback. Be vulnerable enough to say, “This scenario happened with this client. What could we have done differently? Was it something I should have done that I didn’t do?”

Remember, as Brolin’s softball story shows, empathy can be learned and relearned. You can unlearn behaviors that hurt others. Most people aren’t out to hurt others. They’ve just learned harmful patterns that they can change.

Your Empathy Is Revolutionary

Brolin’s journey from victim of empathy-free leadership to champion of emotional intelligence demonstrates that our profession’s future depends on leaders who understand that strength and compassion are partners in creating sustainable success.

Empathetic leadership drives measurable results through higher retention, stronger teams, sharper decision-making, and improved mental health. In an industry grappling with talent shortages and burnout, leaders who can authentically connect with their teams while driving results are essential for survival.

Women in accounting must reject false choices. You don’t have to choose between empathy and strength, between caring and competence. Your emotional intelligence is your competitive advantage.

As Audre Lorde reminds us, “Caring for others doesn’t make you weak. It makes you dangerous to systems built on indifference.”

Ready to hear Brolin’s complete journey and discover more tools for empathetic leadership? Listen to the full She Counts episode to learn how to turn your emotional intelligence into your greatest professional asset. The future of accounting depends on leaders brave enough to lead with both their heads and their hearts, and you’re uniquely positioned to show the way.

This Forbes Top 200 CPA Says Sponsors Matter More Than Mentors

· ·

Picture this: You’re sitting across from a potential client—an older gentleman who seems kind and polite. Your expertise fills the room, your credentials speak for themselves, but throughout the entire meeting, he keeps calling you “darling.” Not your name. Just “darling.”

This experience happened to Nicole Davis, founder of Conscious Accounting (formerly Butler Davis) and a Forbes Top 200 CPA. For Davis, who’s originally from Georgia, where terms like “honey” and “sweetheart” are common, it wasn’t about being offended. It was about something deeper.

“Since we’re in a professional setting, I’m like, ‘you need to call me by my name,’” Davis explains. “When some men see a pretty face or just women in general, they kind of tend to sidestep our expertise.”

Sound familiar? If you’ve worked in accounting, tax, or bookkeeping for any length of time, you’ve probably been there. That moment when your face is seen, but your capabilities somehow become invisible. It’s why a recent episode of the She Counts podcast bears the title “Don’t Call Me Darling,” and why Nicole’s response to these moments is a masterclass in redefining professional power.

When Power Looks Different Than Expected

Davis’s journey to commanding respect didn’t happen overnight. Despite her current reputation for dominating whatever room she enters, she admits something that might surprise you: “I am highly introverted. People think I’m not because I can turn on. But as quickly as I turn it on, I can turn it off.”

Early in her corporate career, Davis bought into traditional definitions of power. “Early in my career when I worked in corporate America, I thought power meant title, power meant that corner office, power meant I’m calling the shots and I’m telling people what to do.”

But when she started her own firm, that facade crumbled. What emerged was something far more powerful. “Real power isn’t in a title. Real power isn’t in how much money you have. Real power is when you own who you are, and you make everyone else also accept that person.”

The catalyst for this shift? Representation. Davis’s boss at the Federal Home Loan Bank, Michelle, was the first Black woman she’d ever worked for. “When I started working for her, my eyes started to open. I started to see myself like a boss, but I didn’t see the path to get there as a Black woman, because all I saw was white men.”

This speaks to something we don’t talk about enough in our profession. When you don’t see people who look like you in positions of power, it’s hard to imagine yourself there. As co-host Nancy McClelland admits, “When I hear the word ‘doctor,’ I presume it’s a white male. Now, that is just absolutely ridiculous. It’s these deep-seated institutional societal biases we all have.”

For Davis, seeing Michelle changed everything. It showed her there was a path and more importantly, she could define what that path looked like.

Redefining What Domination Really Means

When Davis talks about “dominating” spaces, she’s not talking about aggression or making others small. “Dominating means agency. It means I am calling the shots. I’m writing my own tickets, I’m making the rules. I am doing things my way.”

But here’s the part that gave podcast co-host McClelland chills: “Dominating is not about making men small, right? Dominating is about making the space honest enough for all of us to fit into it.”

This isn’t about rejecting collaboration or building walls. It’s about what Davis calls “owning your story so completely that the room moves to your rhythm. I’m not moving to theirs.”

Learning to do this required Davis to develop boundaries that she calls “non-negotiables.” “I set boundaries and I set them fast with people,” she says. The key is being “warm but firm.”

As Davis explains, “People think you have to walk into a room and be the loudest person there to show you’re significant. No, you don’t. You walk into a room and you’re just there. Your presence says way more than words you could ever speak or say.”

This kind of presence requires something many women in accounting struggle with: refusing to shrink ourselves to make others comfortable. But when you do it right, something magical happens. Davis describes authenticity as working “a lot like Wi-Fi” because “people in range of you being who you are get that signal and they log into theirs.”

In other words, when you show up authentically, you give others permission to do the same.

Technology: The Great Equalizer

One area where Davis sees a massive opportunity for women is technology, specifically AI. Her philosophy? “Buddy up with the bots.”

“AI is making a grand stand in our profession, and so many people still have not latched on to it yet,” Davis observes. But here’s where women have an advantage. “Women have mastered efficiency out of necessity. Women are perfectly positioned to make a big major splash in the tech industry.”

Davis describes AI as acting like “a tireless junior associate” that “never needs to take a vacation. They never get tired. They can do all the things you really don’t want to do from an administrative standpoint, possibly from an analytical standpoint.”

This is about layering technology with relationship-building, and it’s something women excel at.

This approach has allowed Davis to build her firm primarily through relationships rather than traditional sales tactics. “I built my firm strictly on relationships,” she says. “I just kept taking care of my current clients and adding more services to what they needed.”

The result? A practice designed around her values rather than traditional expectations, what she calls achieving true freedom through strategic use of technology.

The Power of Sponsorship vs. Mentorship

While many people focus on finding mentors, Davis believes sponsorship is more critical. “Mentors guide, but sponsors vouch.” This concept was a key inspiration to co-host Questian Telka in her initial creation of the She Counts podcast.

Davis’ own story illustrates this perfectly. In 2020, Jeff Drew from the AICPA reached out about the practitioners planning committee. “I had no idea this committee existed,” Davis admits. But Drew’s sponsorship opened doors she didn’t know were there, eventually leading to her current role as committee chair.

“Sponsors rewrite the guest list for you so your name is on it,” Davis explains. “And when you’re on the list, your mentors help you stay on the list and guide you as you go through your journey.”

This distinction matters because it shows sometimes the biggest barrier isn’t our capability; it’s visibility. Sponsors help solve that problem by putting your name in rooms where decisions are made.

From Spaces Not Built for Us

When asked about spaces traditionally dominated by men, Davis counters, “What space was ever built for me?”

It’s a powerful question that reframes the entire conversation. Rather than trying to fit into existing structures, Davis has consistently created her own path, from starting her accounting firm to launching a construction company.

“Who said women can’t wear heels and then put on some steel-toed boots in the same week?” she asks with characteristic wit.

This mindset shift, from asking for permission to creating opportunities, separates true leaders from those still waiting for someone else to open doors.

Getting Out of Your Own Head

Davis’s advice for women wanting to take up more space is, “Take it. I know we haven’t touched on this a lot, but stamp out imposter syndrome. You’re not an imposter.”

Her approach involves speaking life into your goals. “Say it out-loud. Say it to yourself in the mirror. Say, ‘I am a badass speaker. I am an exceptional accountant. I know how to do this, this, and this.’ Even if you don’t know how to do it, say it anyway. Because eventually your mind is going to start believing it, and eventually your actions start following what your mind believes.”

It’s about recognizing that you’ve already proven yourself. “You wouldn’t have gotten this far without knowing anything. You know something. Use that to level you up.”

The Ripple Effect

Davis’s journey from being called “darling” to being recognized as a Forbes Top 200 CPA represents something bigger than individual success: cultural transformation.

When women refuse to shrink themselves, when they set boundaries while maintaining warmth, when they leverage technology to create more inclusive practices, they create ripple effects that extend far beyond their immediate sphere.

As Davis puts it, authenticity becomes “a permission slip” for everyone around you. Refusing to apologize for taking up space permits others to do the same.

In the accounting profession, technology is challenging traditional power structures and changing client expectations. There’s a new generation of professionals who refuse to accept “that’s how it’s always been done” as an answer.

Women like Davis are leading this transformation, not by playing by the old rules, but by writing new ones. They prove you don’t need to adopt masculine models of authority to command respect, and you don’t need to diminish others to demonstrate your strength.

Every boundary you set, every authentic moment you choose over conformity, every time you refuse to make yourself small, you give the next generation permission to thrive.

Because the world needs more women who understand that true domination isn’t about making others small. It’s about being so genuinely powerful that everyone around you gets permission to thrive.

Ready to transform how you show up in your professional spaces? Listen to the full She Counts episode to hear more of Davis’s insights and discover specific strategies you can implement immediately. 

The Lookback Period Mistake That Turns Valid Refunds Into Permanent Losses

· ·

Lenora Hamilton thought she had everything figured out. She filed her 2017 tax return in November 2021—late, but still claiming a $2,070 refund she believed was rightfully hers. The IRS immediately rejected her claim. She appealed, lost, and spent nearly a year fighting in federal court.

The final verdict in early 2025 delivered a crushing blow: the court ruled her claim was “timely filed,” but she couldn’t recover a single dollar. Not because the refund was wrong, but because she missed something called the “lookback period.” A technical timing rule had permanently erased her entire refund.

In a recent episode of the Tax in Action podcast, host Jeremy Wells used Hamilton’s story to explain the refund statute of limitations—a subject most tax professionals think they understand but actually don’t. The stakes are enormous: once these deadlines pass, Wells warns, “there’s virtually no going back.”

The Two-Step Framework That Trips Up Even Experienced Practitioners

Most tax professionals think the refund statute of limitations is straightforward. File within three years, get your refund. But Wells explains it’s a complex two-step process where each step has different rules and different consequences.

Step One: Can You File at All?

The first step determines whether you can file a refund claim. This “limitation period” is the later of either three years after the return was filed or two years after the tax was paid if no return was filed. Wells calls this the “refund statute end date,” and it’s your final deadline to file any claim.

Here’s the key detail that trips up practitioners: “The filing of an original return, not an amended return, begins the period of limitation,” Wells explains. This means if you amend a return filed years ago, you’re still working within the timeline set by that original filing date.

Step Two: How Much Can You Actually Get?

Even if you file a timely claim, step two determines how much you can recover through the “lookback period.” The rules change dramatically based on when you file:

  • File within three years: You can look back at the full three years
  • File after three years: Your lookback period shrinks to just two years

This is where Hamilton got trapped. The court found she filed a timely claim, satisfying step one. But because she filed her 2017 return so late—November 2021—her lookback period couldn’t reach back to her 2017 tax payments, which were deemed made on April 15, 2018.

As Wells puts it, “The court said she filed a timely claim for refund. However, for that timely claim, there was no refund available. What does that mean? How can that be?” To understand the answer, you have to know when the IRS considers payments “made” under tax law.

The Payment Timing Trap That Caught COVID-Era Taxpayers

The lookback period depends on when payments are “deemed made,” not when they actually happened. This creates counterintuitive situations that can permanently cost taxpayers money.

The Withholding Rule

Under IRC section 6513, all tax withheld from your paychecks during the year is deemed paid on April 15th of the following year. It doesn’t matter if the money was withheld in January or December—it’s all considered paid on April 15th.

For Hamilton, “Her 2018 withholding is deemed paid on April 15th, 2019, which is the 15th day of the fourth month following the close of that tax year.”

The COVID-19 Disaster

These timing rules created a perfect storm during the pandemic. The IRS postponed filing deadlines—2019 returns were due on July 15, 2020, and 2020 returns were due on May 17, 2021. But payments were still deemed made on April 15th of each year.

This trapped taxpayers who filed during the postponement periods. Someone who filed their 2019 return on July 15, 2020 (perfectly timely) might wait until July 15, 2023, to file a refund claim. Their three-year lookback would run from July 15, 202,3 back to July 15, 2020. But their 2019 payments were deemed made on April 15, 2020, which falls outside their lookback window.

Wells explains: “This left taxpayers who didn’t file extensions for those tax years stuck with potentially valid refund claims, yet they didn’t have any periods within the lookback period because those payments were still deemed filed as of April 15th.”

The IRS eventually provided relief through Notice 2021-21, but only after recognizing that its own timing rules created harsh consequences for taxpayers who did nothing wrong.

The Dangerous “Due Date” Myth Costing Taxpayers Money

A destructive misconception in refund statute law sounds perfectly reasonable: “You have three years from the due date to claim a refund.” 

But Wells makes it crystal clear that this perception isn’t accurate. “The end date is actually three years from the filing date or possibly two years from the payment date.” The due date might coincide with these periods for taxpayers who file on time, but it’s not what controls the deadline.

Why the Due Date Myth Fails

The due date myth crumbles in the exact situations where practitioners need precision most:

  • Late-filed returns: A taxpayer who files their 2020 return in September 2023 doesn’t have until April 15, 2024 to claim refunds. Their three-year period starts from September 2023.
  • Amended returns with post-deadline payments: Wells explains these create situations where “a valid refund claim made more than three years after the due date, could look back into those payments made after the deadline.”

The Hamilton case perfectly illustrates this. If you applied the due date myth, you’d think she was too late filing in November 2021 for a 2017 return. But the court found her claim was timely because the real rules don’t work that way.

The Professional Liability Risk

For tax professionals, relying on the due date myth creates serious liability exposure. When practitioners give advice based on this oversimplified rule, they risk costing clients money they can never recover.

Wells emphasizes the finality built into these rules: “Once that statute of limitations is up, once you have passed that refund statute end date, there is no going back with some very, very limited exceptions.”

Why These Rules Are So Unforgiving

The refund statute of limitations operates with mechanical precision, regardless of hardship or apparent unfairness. Courts consistently rule that these deadlines are clear and unambiguous, so there’s no room for equitable exceptions or reasonable cause relief.

The Finality Principle

Congress built finality into the tax code intentionally. As Wells explains: “There’s an implicit concept in the tax code that Congress has written into it. I tend to call it finality.” At some point, taxpayers should feel confident that old tax years are truly closed.

But this finality only works if practitioners understand the real rules. The Hamilton case, with its modest $2,070 refund that became a years-long legal battle, shows how even small amounts trigger the same unforgiving rules that govern million-dollar refunds.

The Stakes for Tax Professionals

These rules affect every practitioner who works with amended returns, late filers, or clients with potential refund claims. Understanding when the IRS deems payments made, how postponements interact with lookback periods, and when the due date myth doesn’t apply isn’t just technical knowledge—it’s client protection. And it can be the difference between recovering thousands of dollars and losing them forever.

When Time Runs Out, Money Disappears Forever

The refund statute of limitations represents tax law at its most technically demanding and unforgiving. The two-step framework of limitation periods and lookback periods creates a system where understanding timing rules can mean the difference between financial recovery and permanent loss.

For tax professionals, these rules represent the intersection of expertise and fiduciary responsibility. Relying on oversimplified rules or misunderstand the distinction between filing dates and due dates means risking giving advice that permanently costs clients money.

This finality places enormous responsibility on practitioners to understand and navigate these rules correctly.

Don’t let technical complexity cost your clients money they can never recover. Listen to Wells’ complete Tax in Action episode to master these critical timing rules and protect your clients’ interests and your professional reputation.

Why Your Audit Fails Before Fieldwork Even Starts

· ·

“Some audits are doomed before the fieldwork even begins.”

In Episode 2 of Audit Smarter, Sam Mansour cuts to the heart of a problem many audit professionals face but don’t fully understand. You’ve been there: an experienced team, solid procedures, and a reasonable budget. Yet somehow, the engagement still feels like constantly playing catch-up. Testing seems disconnected. Risks surface at the worst possible moment. Partners ask questions during review that should have been answered weeks ago.

The culprit? Poor risk assessment that undermines everything that follows.

Most audit professionals understand risk assessment is important, but few realize how dramatically it shapes their engagement. Mansour explains, “The risk assessment drives the entire audit approach. And if we misidentify or overlook specific audit risks, your testing could be misaligned, and you could waste time. But even more concerning, you might miss material misstatements.”

Here’s what’s happening across the profession and, more importantly, what you can do about it.

Why Risk Assessment Gets the Short End of the Stick

The problem isn’t that auditors don’t know how to assess risk. It’s that firms have systematically devalued this critical phase, treating it as administrative overhead rather than the strategic foundation it actually is.

“Many teams view planning just as a compliance step and not as a strategic one,” Mansour observes. Budget pressures and efficiency demands create an environment where teams feel pushed to rush through risk assessment. “We devalue the risk assessment phase. We think of it as a textbook thing. Let’s just check some boxes and move on.”

This leads to what Mansour calls “pencil whipping,” mechanically completing checklists without genuine thought or analysis. The evidence shows up everywhere in audit files: work paper references that don’t make sense, incorrect years, or references to people who no longer work at the organization.

“It’s pretty clear it’s been rolled forward,” Mansour notes. “And it’s also very clear no one read through it.”

When external reviewers, whether peer reviewers or regulators, see this kind of documentation, it immediately raises red flags. “As a peer reviewer, you look at some of these risk assessments, and it’s crystal clear they just rolled this from last year and they didn’t even look at it,” he explains. “You’re probably going to be pretty strict when you’re looking at the rest of that file because clearly these guys are just rolling from the prior year.”

The pressure to be “efficient” in planning creates a dangerous cycle where the foundation of the audit becomes weaker, making it much harder to execute proper testing throughout the engagement.

5 Common Mistakes That Derail Audits

Understanding where things typically go wrong helps you avoid these pitfalls in your own engagements. Mansour identifies several patterns that consistently create problems.

Generic, Template-Driven Approaches

When risk assessments are generic and not customized to the specific client, the walkthroughs and procedures that follow suffer. “If we are general or vague in our identification of risks, it results in generic audit procedures,” Mansour explains.

Copying Prior Year Without Thinking

Using prior-year documentation as a starting point makes sense, but many teams go too far. They simply copy everything over with minor adjustments, becoming “a little complacent, a little lazy” in the rollover process. A better approach is to use prior-year information as a guide but take a fresh perspective on the current year.

Failing to Link Risks to Procedures

One “gut-wrenching” moment in an audit review happens when the audit team identifies risks in checklists, but no corresponding procedures address them. “You identified this risk, but what did you do about it?” This mistake exposes fundamental gaps in audit logic.

Superficial Inquiries

Take related party transactions, for example. Many auditors accept a simple “we have none” from the client and move on. But as Mansour points out, “that’s not sufficient.” Instead, “auditors should dig into board minutes, vendor relationships, and ownership records” to understand whether related parties exist and what transactions might occur.

Misusing Junior Staff

Sending inexperienced team members to conduct walkthroughs without proper guidance is a recipe for problems. Junior staff might identify three issues out of ten while missing critical problems that experienced auditors would catch immediately. “Sometimes you need experience to tell you, you’re looking at ten different things and eight of them are going to be a problem and two of them are not,” Mansour explains.

The solution isn’t to avoid using junior staff. It’s to pair them with experienced team members who can provide real-time guidance and fill in the gaps.

Practical Tools to Strengthen Your Risk Assessment

The good news is that these problems are entirely fixable with the right approach and tools. Here’s what works:

  • Dynamic checklists. Move beyond simple checkbox exercises to checklists that challenge teams to collect new information and think deeply about what they find. Ask different types of questions that force auditors to go beyond surface-level inquiries.
  • Structured brainstorming sessions. Don’t just conduct one brainstorming session and call it done. Mansour recommends peppering collaborative discussions throughout the engagement. “Have the engagement team go out to lunch and consider that part of your brainstorming activity,” he suggests. These sessions force teams to share knowledge and often uncover overlooked areas.
  • Early data analytics. Instead of treating analytics as nice-to-have add-ons, deploy them “immediately after engagement acceptance,” Mansour advises. His approach: “Give me your trial balance, and I will do some data analytics on it right from the get-go.” This generates specific issues to investigate before client meetings, allowing you to connect numbers to client stories strategically.
  • Simple intelligence gathering. Something as basic as Googling your client’s name can reveal critical information, yet “a lot of auditors won’t even do that,” Mansour observes. “You’d be shocked at some of the stuff” these searches uncover. Review prior audit findings, look for industry changes, and stay current on client updates.
  • Collaborative team approach. Instead of having one person update risk assessment documentation alone, assign different sections to different team members. This ensures multiple people read through and think about the content, rather than having it all flow through one person who might miss important details.

What Separates Top Performers

Firms that consistently execute superior risk assessments share several key characteristics that set them apart.

They Treat Risk Assessment as a Mindset

“Top performers treat risk assessment as a mindset, not just a task,” Mansour explains. “They understand that there’s value in risk assessments. It’s not just a checkbox on their list.” Their teams are intellectually curious rather than robotic, but this requires giving people adequate time and breathing room to think deeply.

They Create Collaborative Environments

These firms don’t silo team members into individual sections. Instead, they “connect the dots between client goals, internal controls, and audit processes with purpose.” Team members actively consider how discoveries in one area impact testing in others, creating a comprehensive understanding that reduces risk while improving efficiency.

They Invest in Proper Mentorship

Rather than throwing junior staff into complex situations alone, top performers create systematic mentorship structures. They pair junior staff with experienced seniors who provide real-time guidance, immediate field discussions, and progressive responsibility increases.

They Focus on Custom Solutions

Elite performers avoid generic approaches entirely. They tailor audit plans to each client and engagement year. Their team members can explain their logic clearly without defaulting to “it’s what we were told” or “it’s what we did last year.”

Three Changes to Make Right Now

If your firm wants to improve immediately, Mansour recommends focusing on these three foundational changes:

  1. Slow down in the planning process and allow for deeper team discussions. Invest upfront time that prevents downstream scrambling and quality issues.
  2. Ensure walkthroughs include a formal evaluation of control effectiveness with documentation customized to the specific client and current year rather than generic templates.
  3. Critically assess each risk and match it to custom procedures designed to address it, eliminating the disconnect between identified risks and actual testing approaches.

How You Know You Got It Right

Success in risk assessment is measurable through specific indicators. Your audit plan should be tailored, not generic. This demonstrates genuine client-specific thinking rather than template dependency. Your team members should be able to explain their logic clearly and provide substantive reasoning for their approaches.

Most importantly, when partners or regulators review your documentation, they should be able to “read your risk assessment and understand the rationale,” as Mansour puts it. They should see a clear narrative and strategic thinking rather than dry, templated responses.

If your team can’t explain their logic, or if external reviewers see obvious evidence of rolling forward prior year templates, you’re still in checkbox mode rather than strategic thinking mode.

The Foundation Makes the Difference

Risk assessment isn’t preliminary work that happens before the “real” audit begins. It’s the foundation that determines whether your entire engagement succeeds or struggles. As Mansour explains using a gardening analogy, if the risk assessment seed “doesn’t get planted properly, if it’s not cared for properly, it sets you up for failure.”

Firms that recognize this and invest accordingly create sustainable competitive advantages through systematically superior approaches to this critical phase.

The strategies and tools we’ve covered are proven approaches to transform your risk assessment process from liability into a strategic advantage. However, implementation requires commitment to changing how your firm approaches and uses its resources for this foundational work.

Ready to dive deeper into these risk assessment strategies and discover the specific frameworks top performers use? Listen to the full episode of Audit Smarter for Sam Mansour’s complete insights on transforming your approach to risk assessment and elevating your audit practice.

The R&D Credit Reality Check Every Tax Professional Should Understand

· ·

Picture this: A small business owner walks out of a networking event buzzing with excitement. Someone just told them about the Research and Development tax credit. They’re already mentally calculating how much they’ll save on the custom software they’ve been developing for their consulting practice.

This scenario happens all the time, and it shows the gap between what business owners expect and what the tax code actually delivers. In this episode of Tax in Action, host Jeremy Wells, EA, CPA, breaks down one of the most misunderstood areas of tax law: the Section 41 Research and Development Credit.

The Credit That Sounds Simple But Isn’t

When clients first hear about the R&D credit, they focus on that appealing 20% credit for increasing research activities. It sounds straightforward: spend money on research, get 20% back as a tax credit. But as Wells explains, this credit is much more complex.

“I work with a lot of small service-based businesses,” Wells says. “So it doesn’t come up a lot in my practice, but there have been some cases where we’ve had businesses qualify for the credit, and that’s always a little exciting for me.”

That excitement comes after navigating through layers of complexity that immediately separate hopeful applicants from actual recipients.

Section 41 actually has three different parts: qualified research expenses, basic research payments, and Energy Research Consortium credits. For most businesses, only the first part matters. The basic research component applies to research without specific business goals, which Wells dismisses for his small business clients. “If they don’t have a business goal, they probably are not going to be able to afford to pay me for very long.” The energy research component targets massive global energy companies, not typical clients for most tax professionals.

Here’s where the “20% credit” gets misleading. It’s not 20% of research expenses. It’s 20% of the excess of qualified research expenses over a “base amount.” This base amount calculation is complex, but for most businesses, it defaults to 50% of qualifying research expenses.

Wells breaks down the math: “In general, we’re looking at 50% of qualified research expenses and then we’re taking 20% of that.”

The result? What sounds like a 20% credit actually delivers roughly 10% of qualifying research expenses as an actual tax benefit.

But even this 10% assumes businesses can navigate the qualification requirements, which proves much harder than the math.

The Science Requirement That Trips Up Most Businesses

The real barriers come from qualification requirements that act like scientific gatekeepers. Wells identifies the core problem: “This is probably the strongest limitation on what qualifies for research relevant to my clients. The research has to involve a process of experimentation that relies on the principles of either the physical or biological sciences, engineering or computer science.”

This creates an immediate disconnect. When most business owners think about research and development, they think of any effort to improve their operations: better customer service, more efficient workflows, or custom software. But Section 41 demands genuine experimentation rooted in hard sciences.

The “process of experimentation” adds another hurdle. Wells explains that this process “evaluates one or more alternatives to develop or improve a business component where the result was uncertain.” This isn’t about having a clear goal and executing a known path—that’s implementation, not research. True qualifying research requires genuine uncertainty about whether proposed alternatives will work, plus systematic testing of multiple approaches.

This eliminates entire categories of business activities that feel innovative but don’t meet the technical standards. Market research, customer satisfaction studies, workflow optimization, and business process improvements all fall outside the boundaries. As Wells states, “If your research consists of trying to understand your customers better, that’s not going to qualify as research.”

Software development faces even tougher standards. Internal software must pass what Wells calls “a very high bar” through the high threshold of the innovation test. This test requires proof of “substantial and economically significant” improvements, backed by “significant economic risk” where the business commits “substantial resources” with genuine uncertainty about recovery.

The economic risk part proves particularly challenging for small businesses because it excludes what Wells calls “sweat equity.” He explains, “What doesn’t count here, is that sweat equity, or the time spent by the business owner, or the uncompensated work by their partners, or even their staff.”

This requirement for actual cash rather than time investment doesn’t align with how most small businesses operate. The solo consultant developing custom software or the manufacturing business owner optimizing processes typically invest primarily time and expertise rather than substantial cash. Under Section 41, this automatically disqualifies them.

Making It Work: Expenses, Strategies, and Professional Help

For businesses that navigate the scientific requirements, the wage allocation requirements immediately complicate things for any business hoping to qualify through employee efforts.

Wells explains the 80% rule: “If you’ve got some sort of support staff spending at least 80%, four out of five working days a week directly involved in that research project, then their wages qualify in full.” Anything less than 80% requires careful splitting between research and non-research activities.

This gets trickier with executives. Wells has seen businesses try to claim big portions of C-suite wages for research. However, even technical CEOs who contribute to research projects rarely abandon their executive duties entirely. Wells says practitioners must “look at bifurcating, if not entirely writing off, their wages and salaries as not related to the actual research project itself.”

For businesses without internal research capacity, contract research offers an alternative, though with percentage limitations that reduce the effective credit rate. The general rule allows only 65% of contractor payments to qualify, though this increases to 75% for qualified research consortia and 100% for eligible small businesses, universities, or federal laboratories.

Wells breaks down the math for businesses relying entirely on contractors. “If all the qualifying research expenditures are paid to contractors, then we only get about 6.5% of those expenditures in terms of the credit.”

Despite this reduced rate, Wells suggests the contractor route might be easier than internal allocation headaches. “It might also be more advantageous to pay contractors and be able to take 65% of what’s paid to contractors than to worry about taking existing staff and trying to allocate some of their work toward the research project.”

Wells also highlights the payroll tax election as a cash flow strategy for startups. Rather than waiting years to use R&D credits against income taxes, businesses can elect to apply credits against the employer’s 6.2% Social Security tax, creating immediate benefits.

Given all this complexity, Wells strongly recommends working with specialists. “Finding a good, reputable firm to work with or to recommend and refer your clients to. But in general, it’s important that you understand the basis and the basics of section 41.”

Busting Common Myths

Wells addresses two common misconceptions about the R&D credit.

First, that service businesses automatically don’t qualify. While most service businesses won’t qualify for traditional reasons, Wells suggests this shouldn’t lead to automatic dismissal. “It might be possible to advise them in such a way to help them qualify for it, at least in part.” This might involve outsourcing research to qualified contractors, developing products for eventual sale rather than purely internal use, or ensuring research projects involve genuine experimentation rather than predetermined paths.

Second, that payroll is required. Wells points out that contract research expenses can qualify, even if at reduced percentages. While the effective rate drops for businesses using only contractors, “that might be better than nothing,” and “better than thinking that it has to be payroll and therefore nothing qualifies.”

The Bottom Line for Tax Professionals

The Section 41 R&D credit shows how well-intentioned tax policy is accessible primarily to those with sophisticated professional guidance. What sounds like a straightforward “20% credit” turns into a technical challenge that eliminates most hopeful applicants.

For tax professionals, understanding complex credits isn’t just about technical knowledge; it’s about managing client relationships and setting appropriate expectations. The practitioner who dismissively tells clients they don’t qualify without understanding restructuring possibilities doesn’t serve the client well. But the advisor who raises false hopes by oversimplifying requirements creates bigger problems.

Listen to the full episode of the Tax in Action podcast for Wells’ full breakdown of Section 41. His practical approach helps practitioners distinguish between realistic opportunities and unrealistic expectations while serving clients’ best interests.

The R&D credit may be complicated, but understanding its complexities opens doors to legitimate opportunities.