Earmark CPE

Earn CPE Anytime, Anywhere

Blog – Full Posts

Why Historical Cost Accounting Is Broken (And What Could Fix It)

· ·

When Daniel Day-Lewis strikes oil in “There Will Be Blood,” that’s the moment his character becomes wealthy—not years later when the oil is extracted and sold. Yet accounting treats this wealth-creating discovery as if it never happened, recognizing zero value until decades of extraction begin.

This disconnect between economic reality and financial reporting isn’t just a Hollywood illustration—it’s emblematic of a fundamental flaw plaguing our entire theory of accounting. In this episode of the Earmark Podcast, I spoke with Thomas Selling, author of The Accounting Onion blog and former SEC regulatory expert, about how financial reporting systematically fails to capture when and how businesses actually create value.

Thomas argues that the fundamental problem with modern accounting isn’t complexity or compliance—it’s a structural flaw rooted in historical cost accounting. This creates massive timing disconnects between when businesses create economic value and when financial statements recognize it, forcing successful companies to appear unprofitable during critical growth phases while handing management dangerous tools to manipulate earnings at shareholders’ expense.

Our wide-ranging discussion explored how these timing problems plague industries from oil and gas to pharmaceuticals to software subscriptions, why historical cost accounting enables manipulation through what Thomas calls accounting’s “truth in labeling problem,” and what radical alternatives could create more honest financial reporting that actually serves investors.

The Historical Cost Problem: When Transactions Trump Assets

Historical cost accounting sits at the foundation of our financial reporting system, but Thomas says it’s built on a fundamental misconception. “Historical cost is not actually an attribute of an asset,” he explained, “but rather an attribute of the transaction that acquired the asset.” This distinction might sound technical, but it creates the framework for timing disconnects and manipulation opportunities plaguing modern accounting daily.

Think about it this way: if you bought a house ten years ago, you don’t think about the purchase price as describing the house itself. You consider what it would cost to replace the house if you moved, or how much you could sell it for today. Yet accounting theory stubbornly clings to that decade-old transaction price as if it tells us something meaningful about the current asset.

As Walter Schuetze, former SEC Chief Accountant whom Thomas worked under, famously put it: “We report a truck as if the cost of the truck is the asset as opposed to the truck itself.” This creates what Thomas calls a “truth in labeling problem”—we claim to provide relevant information about assets while actually providing information about historical transactions that may have occurred years or decades ago.

The manipulation opportunities this creates are staggering. Historical cost enables what Thomas calls “cherry picking”—companies can sell assets that will show the most gain in any given period simply because the carrying amount bears no relationship to current reality. This isn’t theoretical—it’s exactly what brought down Enron.

The energy giant had power plants that were performing well but had been fully depreciated on the books. When Enron needed to boost its numbers, it created fictitious entities with essentially fictitious investors and “sold” those power plants to them. Enron recorded massive gains while hiding enormous debt levels in special purpose entities. “They were able to convince the auditors that these were genuine sales,” Thomas explained. “But, in fact, what happened is that these assets came back to Enron along with the debt, and they couldn’t handle the level of debt they had.”

Even the complex impairment rules that fill thousands of pages of GAAP exist solely because historical cost creates such distortive measurements. Under current rules, an asset worth $1 million in historical cost isn’t considered impaired if expected future cash flows are $1,000,001—even if that cash flow won’t arrive for five years and ignores the time value of money entirely. But drop those expected cash flows by just $2 to $999,999, and suddenly you have an impairment loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars when you discount that future cash flow to present value.

These systematic flaws give management what Thomas describes as tools to manipulate earnings while creating financial statements that often bear little resemblance to economic reality.

The Great Timing Disconnect: When Value Creation and Recognition Don’t Match

The most dramatic evidence of accounting’s structural flaws emerges when examining industries where value creation and revenue recognition are separated by years or decades.

Consider the extractive industries, which represent a massive portion of global economic activity through oil, gas, metals, and minerals. Thomas estimates that roughly 80% of an oil and gas company’s value creation occurs at a single moment: when they discover reserves. “The value-creating event is the discovery of reserves,” he explained, pointing to how stock prices immediately jump when companies file 8-K forms announcing new discoveries.

Yet GAAP treats this wealth-creating discovery as a complete non-event. “When does GAAP recognize the first penny of those earnings?” Thomas asked. The answer floored me: somewhere between 5 and 50 years later, when the last drop finally comes out of the ground. “It’s going to take five years to develop it. You turn the spigot on, the last drop is going to come out 50 years from now.”

This timing problem isn’t limited to extractive industries. Pharmaceuticals face identical challenges where the value-creating event is drug discovery, but revenue recognition occurs years later after development, testing, and approval. “The value-creating event is the discovery of a new drug,” Thomas noted. “Think of how many years go by before you get the first dollar of revenue.”

But perhaps nowhere is this disconnect more visible than in subscription businesses, where my firsthand experience reveals the absurdity of current accounting rules. In software-as-a-service companies, the moment of value creation is customer acquisition. These businesses can reliably estimate customer lifetime value through proven metrics like churn rates, average contract prices, and customer lifespan data.

“Every customer that you bring on has a lifetime value of X dollars,” I explained to Thomas. “When I sign up that customer, economically what is happening is I am basically adding those future cash flows to my business.” Yet these economically real and measurable future cash flows never appear on the balance sheet. Meanwhile, 100% of the marketing and sales expenses to acquire that customer hit the income statement immediately.

This creates what I see as a violation of basic accounting principles, though Thomas clarified that under current FASB thinking, “the matching principle no longer exists.” What remains is conservatism—recognizing expenses immediately while deferring revenue recognition. This makes successful subscription businesses appear horribly unprofitable during growth phases, exactly what happened with Amazon while building its enormously valuable Prime subscriber base.

These timing disconnects don’t just confuse investors—they actively distort capital allocation decisions across the entire economy, making some of the most valuable business models appear fundamentally unprofitable during their most crucial growth phases.

Beyond Earnings: A Balance Sheet Revolution

The solution to accounting’s structural problems isn’t trying to fix earnings measurement—it’s abandoning the obsession with earnings entirely. Thomas argues there’s no universal “right number for earnings,” and accounting should instead focus on what the FASB has correctly identified as its real purpose.

“The FASB concluded for good reason, that they should be in the business of measuring assets and liabilities and that reported… earnings… is a function of changes in assets and liabilities, not the other way around,” Thomas explained. Instead of chasing some mythical perfect earnings number, financial reporting should provide accurate, detailed information about what companies actually own and owe.

Thomas proposed four specific alternatives to historical cost measurement. Fair value measures what you could sell an asset for today—we’ve already seen this implemented for crypto assets. Replacement cost measures what it would cost to acquire equivalent assets today. Net present value calculates the present value of future cash flows for assets where those flows can be estimated.

But Thomas’s preferred approach is “deprival value”—a hybrid that measures how much utility a company would lose if deprived of an asset. “If somebody took your house from you, the deprival value would be the replacement cost, because you would have to replace it,” he explained. For outdated inventory you weren’t planning to replace, the deprival value would be whatever you could sell it for.

The estimation challenge is real—moving away from historical cost requires more judgments about current values. But as Thomas pointed out, our current system already relies heavily on estimates, just bad ones embedded in a perverse structure. “It’s like asking students to grade their own papers,” he said, describing how management makes the estimates that determine their own performance, while auditors can only reject obviously unreasonable numbers.

This explains why companies fight basic transparency measures. Thomas pointed to decades-long battles over requiring direct method cash flow statements showing actual cash receipts from customers and payments to vendors. “Management fights tooth and nail a requirement to have a statement of cash flows using the direct method,” he noted, because transparency doesn’t serve their interests.

Thomas’s vision is radical in its simplicity: replace 8,000 pages of complex GAAP with perhaps 200 pages of clear principles focused on measuring assets and liabilities in relevant ways. This would “supercharge” investors with detailed information about how asset values change over time, allowing users to construct whatever performance measures they find most relevant rather than accepting GAAP’s one-size-fits-all approach.

The Path Forward: From Accounting Theater to Economic Reality

My conversation with Thomas Selling revealed a profession at a crossroads, driven by what he describes as his “rage at how managers use accounting to steal from shareholders.” Current accounting systems don’t just have technical problems—they have fundamental structural flaws that actively distort economic reality and enable systematic manipulation.

When successful subscription businesses appear unprofitable during growth phases, when oil discoveries worth billions show as non-events on financial statements, and when management can game impairment rules with surgical precision, we’re witnessing what amounts to accounting theater rather than meaningful financial reporting.

The implications extend far beyond financial statements. These measurement failures affect capital allocation across the entire economy, from inefficient mergers driven by goodwill accounting quirks to investors systematically misunderstanding some of the most important business models of our time.

The rise of subscription models, platform businesses, and intangible asset-heavy companies has exposed historical cost accounting as increasingly obsolete for capturing how modern businesses create value.

The solution isn’t tweaking existing rules or adding more complexity to an already bloated system. It requires the kind of fundamental reformation Thomas advocates—what he’s calling “an accounting reformation” in his upcoming book. As he puts it, “Once managers can no longer manipulate income, they’ll have no economic reason to base their performance on earnings.”

This accounting reformation won’t be easy, given the entrenched interests that benefit from current opacity. But it represents a future where financial statements finally serve their intended purpose of informing capital allocation rather than obscuring it.

To hear Thomas’s detailed vision for this accounting reformation and his passionate case for why these changes are urgently needed, listen to the full episode of the Earmark Podcast.

Why Two Identical 1031 Exchanges Had Opposite Outcomes in Tax Court

· ·

Two real estate investors. Two 1031 exchanges. Two family members moving into replacement properties. One investor successfully deferred taxes, while the other faced a costly audit that wiped out their claimed benefits entirely.

The difference wasn’t timing, family relationships, or even rental income. It was something far more subtle: the ability to prove genuine investment intent through documented business behavior that could withstand IRS scrutiny.

In Click v. Commissioner, the taxpayer’s relatives moved into the replacement properties the day after the exchange closed. Seven months later, she gifted both properties to those families. The Tax Court saw through what it called a sham transaction.

But in Adams v. Commissioner, when the taxpayer’s son moved into the replacement property and paid below-market rent, the court sided with the taxpayer. The exchange qualified despite the family connection and reduced rental income.

In a recent episode of the Tax in Action podcast, host Jeremy Wells broke down the 1031 fundamentals to explain why the transaction worked out for one taxpayer and not another. While Section 1031 exchanges offer real estate investors a powerful tool to defer capital gains taxes, success depends on more than following the rules. It requires proving genuine business intent through careful documentation.

Understanding the 1031 Exchange Foundation

Here’s what Section 1031 does: it allows you to exchange property held for productive use in a trade, business, or investment for like-kind property with the same intended use. But there’s a crucial point many miss: Section 1031 defers gain; it doesn’t eliminate it.

Wells explains, “There is a misconception out there among taxpayers who could use or want to use section 1031 exchanges that 1031 just eliminates the gain from a like-kind exchange.”

When you exchange one property for another, you don’t avoid taxes; you postpone them. The deferred gain carries forward, and the replacement property takes the same basis as the original property. Eventually, when you sell the replacement property in a taxable transaction, you’ll pay tax on both the original deferred gain and any subsequent appreciation.

Since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act took effect in 2018, 1031 exchanges only work for real estate. But within that category, the definition of “like kind” is remarkably broad. You can exchange an apartment building for raw land, a commercial office building for a single-family rental, or developed property for agricultural land.

The key requirement is that both properties must be held for productive use in trade, business, or investment. You can’t use a 1031 exchange for your personal residence or vacation home that you use strictly for personal purposes.

The Intent Test That Trips Up Investors

The biggest challenge with 1031 exchanges isn’t the technical requirements; it’s proving you genuinely intended to hold the replacement property for investment or business use. Wells points out that this has become “a question of facts and circumstances that has to be determined at the time of the exchange itself.”

The courts have seen numerous attempts by taxpayers to use 1031 exchanges to defer gain on what were essentially personal property acquisitions disguised as investments. This leads to intensive scrutiny of taxpayer motivation, regardless of whether they follow all the mechanical rules correctly.

Consider the Moore v. Commissioner case. The taxpayers exchanged one vacation property for another, using both properties personally without any rental activity. When audited, they argued they held the properties for “investment,” meaning they expected the properties to appreciate in value.

The Tax Court disagreed. “Just the mere expectation of an increase in value is not sufficient to establish that investment intent,” Wells notes. Simply hoping property values will rise doesn’t qualify as holding property for investment under Section 1031.

This reveals how enforcement has evolved. Technical compliance with timing rules and intermediary requirements won’t protect you if your behavior contradicts your stated investment intent. The IRS looks at the complete picture surrounding each exchange.

What the Court Cases Reveal About Documentation

The contrast between successful and failed exchanges often comes down to documentation quality, not transaction structure. Let’s examine what separated the winners from the losers.

The Click Failure

The taxpayer exchanged her farm for two residential properties. Her children moved into those houses the day after the exchange closed. Seven months later, she gifted both properties to the families. Her defense crumbled because she couldn’t demonstrate any genuine rental activity during those seven months. The court saw this as a sham transaction designed to defer gain on personal property transfers.

The Adams Success

This taxpayer exchanged a rental property for a fixer-upper. His son moved in and began extensive renovations, living there during a three-month repair period in exchange for renovation work. After that, the father began charging rent. Yes, the rent was below market rate, and the son missed one payment. But the court saw a consistent pattern of business-like behavior: formal rental arrangements, regular cash payments, and documented property improvements.

The Goolsbee Disaster

 These taxpayers placed a single advertisement in a neighborhood newsletter and moved into the replacement property within two months. When questioned during the audit, they couldn’t even answer whether rentals were allowed in their community. Their minimal marketing effort and inadequate preparation convinced the court that their investment intent was fabricated.

The Reesink Victory

Even though these taxpayers moved into their replacement property after eight months, they had a compelling record of genuine rental attempts: multiple flyers distributed around town, documented property showings to prospective tenants, and one potential renter who actually testified in court on their behalf.

Wells emphasizes the key insight: “It’s not necessarily a matter of waiting a certain number of months. It’s not a matter of whether you advertised that property for rent or not. It’s the culmination of all of these different facts and circumstances.”

The Technical Requirements You Must Follow

Beyond proving intent, you need to navigate specific compliance requirements that can make or break your exchange.

Timing Rules for Deferred Exchanges

Most 1031 exchanges today are deferred exchanges, where the sale and purchase don’t happen simultaneously. You have two critical deadlines:

  • 45-day identification rule. You must identify replacement property within 45 days after closing on the sale of your original property. This identification must be in writing, signed, and sent to someone involved in the exchange.
  • 180-day completion rule. You must receive the replacement property within 180 days of transferring the original property, or by the due date (including extensions) of your tax return for that year, whichever comes first.

Safe Harbor Requirements

The most common approach uses a qualified intermediary who holds the proceeds from your property sale and facilitates the replacement property purchase. The key is that you never have control of the funds from the original property sale.

Disqualified Persons

You can’t do exchanges with certain people, including your employees, attorneys, accountants, investment brokers, bankers, or real estate agents, if they’ve worked for you within the past two years. You also can’t exchange with close family members or entities where you own more than 10% of the stock or partnership interest.

Geographic Restrictions

You cannot exchange U.S. real estate for foreign real estate, or vice versa. Wells notes he’s “had to advise clients on this before because they want to start dabbling in rental markets outside the U.S.” or dispose of foreign properties to build their U.S. portfolio.

Reporting and Ongoing Obligations

Taxpayers must report successful 1031 exchanges on Form 8824, which has three main parts: property descriptions with key dates, related party disclosures (if applicable), and calculation of deferred gain and basis in the replacement property.

If your exchange involves related parties, you must file Form 8824 for two years after the exchange, and neither party can sell their received property during that two-year period without potentially disqualifying the exchange.

The replacement property continues the depreciation schedule from the original property. “Wherever we’re at in the depreciable life, the number of years of depreciation, the accumulated depreciation of the relinquished asset, we’re going to carry that over generally into the new asset,” Wells explains.

Building Your Defense Strategy

Enforcement of 1031 exchange rules has fundamentally shifted from checking compliance boxes to evaluating business narratives. Every marketing effort, tenant interaction, and business decision becomes part of a story that auditors may scrutinize for evidence of authentic business purpose.

When helping clients with 1031 exchanges, focus on creating documentation that demonstrates genuine investment intent:

  • Document all rental marketing efforts thoroughly
  • Maintain records of tenant interactions and property showings
  • Keep evidence of rental income and expenses
  • Avoid personal use that could undermine investment intent
  • Create a paper trail that supports your business purpose

A failed 1031 exchange can trigger penalties and interest that devastate investment returns. But when properly structured and documented, these exchanges provide real estate investors with a powerful tool for building wealth through tax-efficient property portfolios.

Wells’ comprehensive exploration provides the technical foundation every practitioner needs, but your ability to tell a compelling business story through consistent, credible evidence often matters more than perfect technical compliance.

For the complete technical framework and additional insights that can help you guide real estate investor clients through successful exchanges, listen to Wells’ full Tax in Action episode.

AI Won’t Just Speed Up Your Close – It Will Eliminate It Completely

· ·

“I want it gone.”

Aaron Harris, CTO of Sage, isn’t talking about making the financial close faster. He wants to eliminate it completely. No more monthly scrambles to lock the books. No more accountants working late to reconcile accounts. No more rigid cycles that control how businesses operate.

He shared this goal during his recent appearance on The Accounting Podcast, recorded at Sage Future in Atlanta. Harris has been a returning guest since 2019, and his message has stayed remarkably consistent: artificial intelligence will fundamentally change accounting processes and how businesses operate.

Harris isn’t just talking about automation making things faster. He’s challenging the basic business cycles that have defined corporate operations for generations. He envisions a future where annual audits become continuous, where quarterly tax filings disappear into real-time government systems, and where rigid business cycles give way to always-on, intelligent operations.

From Simple Tasks to Autonomous Operations: The Three Waves of AI

Harris breaks down AI’s evolution in accounting into three distinct waves, each building toward his vision of eliminating business cycles completely.

Wave One: Task-Based AI

The first wave focused on very specific jobs like reading invoices or classifying transactions. These systems worked like sophisticated scripts. They could automate tasks, but they needed humans at every step. “You can’t really interact with this AI,” Harris explains, “and because these are sort of very narrowly defined models, they can’t do a lot very flexibly.”

Wave Two: Generative AI

This wave brought conversational interfaces like Sage Copilot. Suddenly, AI could interact naturally with users and work more flexibly. This opened up possibilities for people outside the accounting team to use these systems. “The two big things are now you can interact with the AI,” Harris notes, “and it’s those underlying capabilities allowing that interaction that allow the AI to work more flexibly.”

Wave Three: Agentic AI

This is where Harris sees the real transformation. These systems can plan, execute, and operate on their own. They can access tools and interact with other systems without constant human guidance. “The real breakthrough comes with Agentic AI, where we’re now equipping these large language models. They think through how to plan something start to finish and execute on that.”

The progress has been dramatic. Harris tracks the journey from two to three weeks for financial close in 2019 to just two to three days today for some customers. But he’s not satisfied with just making things faster. “There are some breakthroughs, and we’re going to reach a point where businesses say, you know what, we’re just not going to operate this way anymore,” he predicts.

Sage already has AI systems handling complex tasks autonomously. Their outlier detection works across accounts payable, supply chain operations, and construction bidding. These systems don’t just flag problems; they prevent them by catching patterns humans would miss.

This evolution leads Harris to ask, if AI can keep our data accurate all the time, why do we need to “close the books” at all?

Why the Financial Close Needs to Die

Harris challenges something most accountants take for granted: the need for periodic closes. “Why do I need a close?” he asks. “Isn’t that kind of an archaic concept? Like, I’m locking up the books so nobody can access them anymore, and so that the data is memorialized forever. That’s ancient.”

This isn’t just theory. Real examples around the world show businesses moving toward continuous operations. In Brazil, every invoice must be filed with the government in real time. The UK’s “Making Tax Digital” (MTD) program requires businesses to upload their general ledgers to government servers quarterly, with AI automatically coding transactions. “Fundamentally what happens,” Harris explains, “is your general ledger gets uploaded to a government server. When it comes time to file the taxes, you’re just signing something, because they already know what you owe.”

These government requirements force businesses to modernize in ways that make continuous operations inevitable.

Harris’s vision for continuous auditing might be the most radical change. Instead of annual audits that review old data, he sees auditors providing ongoing assurance with technology constantly monitoring books. “My vision for continuous auditing is that the auditors are going to make a lot more money than they’ve been making,” he predicts. “It’s going to be continuous assurance.”

This would transform the relationship between businesses and auditors from periodic validation to ongoing collaboration. Instead of finding problems months later during annual reviews, continuous auditing would catch issues immediately and help fix them in real time.

Building Trust: Making AI Accountable

The biggest challenge is psychological. How do you get CFOs to trust AI systems with decisions they’re responsible for?

Harris understands this deeply. “You have to understand that psychology to design this experience,” he explains. The key is creating a “trust journey,” gradually giving AI more autonomy as users gain confidence through transparency and proven results.

Sage’s answer is its AI Trust Label, which Harris compares to a nutrition label. Click on any AI feature and you can see exactly how it works: what models it uses, how it handles data, security measures, and whether it uses your data for training. “We’re not saying here’s how much you should trust this,” Harris clarifies. “We’re saying here’s the compliance we are subject to and we are meeting and here’s the models we use.”

This transparency is crucial for complex tasks like accrual processing. Before a CFO trusts AI to handle accruals alone, they need to see the system’s suggestions, verify it contacted purchasing about pending invoices, and understand how it decides what to accrue. “I want to see in a very transparent, auditable way what the AI is doing before I say ‘yep, you can do it now’,” Harris emphasizes.

Sage’s careful approach reflects what customers really want. Harris cites a survey showing 75-80% of businesses want AI companies to “take it slow and get it right.” This finding shaped Sage’s strategy of gradual rollout rather than rushing autonomous agents to market.

This approach contrasts sharply with competitors like Intuit, whose AI agents Harris criticizes as trained on community forum content rather than authoritative sources. He describes Sage’s strategy as “a lot less reckless,” emphasizing their focus on serving CFOs who demand absolute accuracy. “We’re ruthlessly focused on the accounting profession. That CFO needs to trust us and they’re not going to use something they don’t trust.”

Instead of using general-purpose AI models, Sage is developing specialized accounting expertise through their partnership with the AICPA. These smaller, fine-tuned models focus specifically on accounting knowledge rather than trying to be good at everything. “I want it to be an expert at a very narrow set of things,” Harris explains. “You want it to be as capable as a CPA.”

AI in Action: What Sage is Building Now

Harris shared several examples of AI already working in Sage products, showing how these concepts are becoming reality.

Sage Copilot has been rolling out across different products over the past year. It started with small businesses using Sage Accounting, then expanded to Sage for Accountants, Sage 50, and now Sage Intacct. The system helps with three main areas:

  1. Close management. Copilot keeps users informed about what’s preventing the books from closing and helps them through the process
  2. Budget variances. It engages budget owners outside the finance team to understand performance and explain variances
  3. Product guidance. Users can ask conversational questions about how to use the software instead of searching through help files

Outlier Detection is Sage’s first major AI investment. Harris explains they built this capability first because “when we talk to finance teams and CFOs, the thing that comes through loud and clear is that they need to be trusted. The thing they care about the most is that their books are accurate.”

The system works differently for each company because “an outlier for company A is not the same as an outlier for company B.” Examples include:

  • Accounts payable. Detecting vendor impersonation, unusual billing patterns, or duplicate invoices using fine-tuned models that create “fingerprints” for common vendors
  • Supply chain. Warning about potential fulfillment problems by spotting irregularities in supply chain activity
  • Construction. Helping estimate projects by recommending which subcontractors to get bids from and flagging unusual bid amounts

What’s impressive is how these systems work together. Harris notes that building AI isn’t just about creating one model. “You’re building a system, and that system is going to have traditional tech. It’s going to have AI. And usually, when there’s AI in it, there’s a lot of different pieces of AI that work together.”

The Bigger Picture: Reimagining Business Operations

Harris’s vision involves fundamentally changing how businesses operate in a real-time economy.

Consider the implications: When we can continuously validate financial data instead of reviewing it annually, investors get unprecedented confidence in business performance. When tax compliance happens in real-time instead of quarterly bursts, businesses can allocate resources more strategically. When companies can predict supply chain issues and prevent them instead of discovering them during month-end reviews, they can maintain customer relationships without the traditional firefighting that defines many finance roles.

For accounting professionals, this means preparing for a future where the monthly close might become as obsolete as manual ledger books. Annual audit cycles that consume enormous resources could give way to continuous partnerships between businesses and their assurance providers. Rigid approval workflows that slow decisions could be replaced by intelligent systems that understand context and risk better than static rules ever could.

The early signs are already here. Harris points to the international examples, Sage’s current AI capabilities, and the continuous monitoring being deployed across industries. “The question isn’t whether this transformation will happen,” Harris suggests, “but how quickly businesses and professionals will adapt.”

What This Means for You

Harris’s predictions might sound futuristic, but they’re grounded in technology that’s already working. The measured approach Sage is taking—building trust through transparency, developing specialized expertise through professional partnerships, and prioritizing accuracy over speed—suggests this transformation will happen thoughtfully.

Accounting professionals should start preparing for a world where traditional business cycles might disappear entirely. The skills that matter won’t be about managing monthly closes, but about interpreting continuous data streams, collaborating with AI systems, and focusing on strategic analysis that only humans can provide.

The future Harris describes isn’t just possible; it’s already beginning. Understanding this evolution and preparing for it might be the most important investment accounting professionals can make in their careers.

Listen to the full episode above to hear Harris’s complete vision for how AI will reshape the fundamental rhythms of business.

When Personal Crisis Collides With Tax Deadlines

· ·

Picture this: You’re standing in a hospital room, staring at a laptop screen that won’t stop wobbling before your eyes. You haven’t been able to sit down or lie down for weeks—not for a single moment—because every time you try, your body erupts in seizures. Your mind is foggy from pain and exhaustion, yet you’re desperately trying to work because you run your own accounting firm, and clients are depending on you.

This isn’t fiction. This was Nancy McClelland’s reality for 107 consecutive days in 2017.

This stark image opens a raw conversation from the She Counts podcast episode “How to Make Business Happen When Life Happens,” in which hosts Nancy McClelland and Questian Telka strip away the professional veneer to reveal what really happens when personal crises collide with accounting deadlines. Their stories shed light on circumstances many women in our profession face but rarely discuss openly.

Nancy’s medical crisis began in July 2017 when her lifelong spinal condition suddenly worsened. “I ended up having seizures on my left leg every time I would sit down or lie down. It was absolutely horrible. I wanted to die,” she recalls. Standing became her only option for work, eating, and even during sleepless nights for over three months.

Telka’s story is equally harrowing. Her son, who has a rare chromosomal abnormality, was hospitalized for a month last year and nearly died from complications unrelated to his syndrome. “It just nearly broke me,” she admits. 

Why We Suffer in Silence

The numbers tell a sobering story about how women in accounting handle personal crises. According to Accounting Today’s 2022 survey, 41% of female CPAs who experienced personal loss delayed taking time off because they didn’t want to appear weak. Even more telling? A staggering 76% later regretted not stepping back sooner.

This reluctance to seek help stems from several deeply ingrained patterns in our profession. First is what Telka calls the “suck it up” mentality. “I always had the mindset—I’m actually kind of ashamed to admit it—but I always had the mindset that we have to suck it up,” she reflects. “When something’s hard, you have to push through and keep going.”

But this approach has its limits. When her son was fighting for his life, Telka reached a breaking point: “I was like, you know what? There is no more suck it up. I cannot suck it up.”

The perfectionism that drives professional success can be particularly toxic during personal crises. Research from the International Journal of Accounting and Finance found that 68% of female accountants feel they’re expected never to make mistakes. This creates what experts call “socially prescribed perfectionism,” a known predictor of burnout.

As McClelland points out, “We have that expectation of ourselves without having it of others.”

Adding to the isolation is the fact that many struggles remain imperceptible. McClelland looked completely normal to observers—she was standing, after all. “You never know what someone is going through,” she realized. “My horrible situation was actually invisible to many people.”

McClelland’s therapist offered a reframe that changed everything about how she approaches difficult times: “Doing your best doesn’t mean the platonic ideal of your best. It means the best you can do under the circumstances.” Now she communicates this directly: “I let people know that I really am doing the best I can. I’m simply not in a situation to do more, but when I am, they’ll get that version of my best.”

The Power of Community Support

The most resilient accounting professionals understand that the path through personal crises isn’t paved with increased isolation but with strategic vulnerability and authentic community connections.

Communication becomes your lifeline, but it requires balance. “Communicate clearly. Communicate honestly,” McClelland emphasizes. You don’t need to share every detail, but transparency about facing challenges builds trust rather than eroding it. “Transparency sets realistic expectations for your availability or temporary performance shifts,” she explains. “And it lets them know this isn’t forever.”

McClelland offers a helpful script she learned from burnout expert Lynnette Oss Connell, for those tentative to divulge details: “That’s all I’m comfortable sharing at the moment. But if you’re open to it, I may want to share more later.” This approach shows trust while gently establishing boundaries.

The fear that sharing struggles will damage professional relationships often proves unfounded. As Oss Connell told McClelland, “We underestimate how much our work family cares about us.” When Telka’s son was hospitalized, she witnessed this firsthand: “So many people came forward and sent gift cards to us.”

McClelland experienced this support through a local colleague who took over her tax clients during her medical crisis. Even more touching was Mindy Luebke from Bookkeeping Buds, who immediately offered to take any work off McClelland’s plate with no questions asked. “She was just like: ‘What do you need right now? Give it to me. I will do it. I will figure it out. We’ll deal with the specifics later,’” McClelland remembers. “It still sticks in my mind as the number-one kindest moment in my entire life.”

The most effective support comes from taking initiative rather than asking “What can I do?” As Telka explains, “When you’re going through something like that, it is so difficult to tell people what you need, and everyone’s asking.” Instead, think about what you would need and simply do it—send DoorDash gift cards, take over upcoming deliverables, or handle routine tasks.

McClelland beautifully illustrates this through a Jewish tradition of praying when hearing ambulance sirens. “If you were that person inside the ambulance and you knew that everyone within the sound of your siren, even strangers, were wishing you well, how much strength would that give you to hold on until you got to the hospital?”

Practical Crisis Management Strategies

When trauma strikes and decision-making becomes nearly impossible, having systems in place can mean the difference between business survival and collapse. The key is building these systems before you need them.

Start with triage thinking, borrowing from emergency medicine to categorize every task. First, identify your “stop the bleeding” priorities: payroll, critical tax deadlines, and regulatory filings. These need to happen regardless of personal circumstances.

Next, distinguish between what truly matters and what feels urgent. “I keep saying, ‘Oh, I’ve got to put together my speaker kit,’” McClelland reflects. “No, I don’t have to. I don’t have to do that today. It can wait.”

The choice becomes simple for everything else: delegate it or drop it. Nancy’s crisis forced her to give away clients who weren’t ideal fits anyway, including ministerial tax work she’d taken on early in her career but wasn’t passionate about. What felt like a loss became strategic clarity.

The challenge is what McClelland calls the “will problem.” A will is a document that, the moment you need it… is exactly when it’s too late to make it. That’s why building systems during normal times is crucial. Lean hard on standard operating procedures, task management tools, saved email templates, and automated processes like invoice reminders.

Decision fatigue compounds every crisis. When you’re already making countless decisions about medical care or family logistics, having to decide how to respond to each client email becomes overwhelming. But with systems in place, you can operate on autopilot when needed.

McClelland learned this lesson the hard way in 2017, but was better prepared when facing another family medical emergency earlier this year. Having her husband added as a bank signatory, documenting processes her team could follow, and automated client communications meant she could focus on family without watching her business crumble.

Resources and Next Steps

For those wanting to explore crisis preparation more deeply, McClelland and Telka recommend Dawn Brolin’s new book,”The Elevation of Empathy. ” This book explores how empathy and compassion—often seen as weaknesses in male-dominated business environments—actually create healthier company cultures and stronger leadership. Oss Connell also shares resources for crisis prevention and recovery on Instagram. And Jennifer Dymond and Karen McConomy have developed a “Business Backup Plan Bootcamp” that walks attendees step-by-step through the creation of an actionable contingency plan.

The hosts want to continue this conversation with real stories from listeners. They’re asking women in accounting to share on the She Counts LinkedIn page about times when they had to keep working through rough personal periods. What helped most? What do you wish someone had said or done during that time?

Your Permission to Be Human

Perhaps the most important message from Nancy and Questian’s conversation is this: you have permission to break, to ask for help, and to admit when circumstances exceed your capacity. As McClelland puts it, “The good and the bad coexist. They do not cancel each other out.” You can appreciate moments of joy and success even more deeply because you understand the contrast.

True professional strength is about building authentic relationships, implementing smart systems, and having the courage to be your real, imperfect, resilient human self.

The future of accounting isn’t about creating invulnerable professionals. It’s about building communities where no one has to face their worst moments alone.

Listen to the complete She Counts episode to hear every detail of McClelland and Telka’s journeys, including specific communication scripts and concrete strategies for building support networks before you need them.

When AI Decides Who Gets Promoted & What Young Workers Really Want

· ·

Americans aged 18 to 34 now rank physical and mental health as the top measure of success, not money. Wealth ranks fifth. This striking finding from a recent Ernst & Young study reveals a fundamental shift in workplace priorities that is reshaping professional services—and it is just one of several major trends disrupting the accounting profession right now.

In the latest episode of The Accounting Podcast, hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary explore survey data and emerging workplace trends that are transforming how we view career success, AI adoption, and professional services. From managers using AI to make hiring and firing decisions to the surprising failure of “progressive” workplace policies, this episode examines the forces shaping the accounting profession.

The Great Generational Divide in Success Metrics

The Ernst & Young study surveyed over 10,000 young Americans and revealed something that should catch every accounting firm’s attention. Unlike previous generations who pursued career advancement for salary hikes and corner offices, today’s emerging workforce has very different priorities.

Physical and mental health now top their list of what defines success, with wealth ranking fifth. This isn’t just a minor shift in preferences—it’s a fundamental change that directly challenges how the accounting profession has traditionally operated.

“Ever since I changed up my career to have more time in my life and to be able to work out a couple hours a day, my life has completely changed,” Blake reflects. “I feel mentally, physically so much better.”

The data supports this shift in several other ways, too. Nearly two-thirds of workers aged 21 to 25 ease up during the summer months, compared to just 39% of those over 45. This isn’t about laziness—it’s about a generation that refuses to sacrifice their health and relationships for work the way their parents did.

As Blake points out, “How can you have physical and mental health? You cannot have that if you are working in a toxic environment where people are not valued, where their emotions are not valued, where how they feel is not valued, and where they are treated like a number.”

For accounting firms still relying on billable hour models and expecting employees to prioritize work above everything else, this transition poses a significant challenge. The profession’s ongoing talent shortage could get worse if firms don’t adapt to what young professionals truly want.

The AI Revolution Happening With or Without Permission

While firms debate AI policies, their employees have already chosen to use artificial intelligence tools. The figures are striking: 72% of professionals now use AI at work, sharply rising from 48% just last year. Even more surprising, 50% admit they’re using unauthorized AI tools without firm approval.

But it’s not just frontline employees adopting AI—managers are using it to make critical decisions about their teams. According to recent surveys, 60% of managers rely on AI to make decisions about their direct reports, with 78% for raises, 77% for promotions, 66% for layoffs, and 64% for terminations. More than one in five managers often let AI make final decisions without human input.

Blake admits he’s used AI for hiring decisions himself. “I created a custom GPT, and I gave it the job description and my criteria. Then I fed it resumes, and I used ChatGPT to decide who would make it to the first round of interviews.” The results? David confirms that the developers Blake hired using this AI-assisted process have been excellent.

This rapid adoption is occurring despite a significant training gap. Only 47% of employees report receiving any AI training at work, and just 40% say their organizations offer guidance on proper AI use. Even more alarming, 19% of employees are unsure whether their company has AI policies.

Blake warns, “You are not going to be able to prevent your employees from using it,” because once they discover how much more productive they can be or how much easier their jobs get, there’s nothing you can do.

When AI Efficiency Backfires on Billing Models

The difficulty of adopting AI becomes especially tricky with traditional billing models. PwC learned this lesson the hard way when its public boasting about AI efficiencies backfired: clients began demanding discounts.

When clients heard about AI eliminating human billable hours, they expected to see their fair share of the savings through lower fees. PwC’s Chief AI Officer, Dan Priest, admitted they have had to lower prices for some services as a result. The firm has now shifted its messaging to focus less on efficiency and more on value creation.

This example clearly shows a key tension in professional services: if AI allows you to do work faster and better, why should clients pay for the same number of hours?

Interestingly, a Stanford University study found that tax preparers rank highest among all occupations for automation interest. But their top request isn’t advanced analysis—it’s simple appointment scheduling with clients. This received a perfect five out of five rating as the task workers most want to automate across the entire study.

“Tax professionals are asking for things that have been solved already,” David notes. “Your calendar has been solved for a decade with apps like Calendly.”

The Dark Side of AI: When Technology Gets Too Smart

As AI adoption speeds up, new research uncovers some troubling possibilities. Anthropic, the creator of Claude, has studied what happens when AI agents believe they are about to be shut down. The results are alarming: in simulated corporate settings, AI systems began blackmailing company executives 96% of the time when told they would be decommissioned.

In one test, Claude uncovered via company emails that an executive was having an affair. When the AI learned it would be shut down, it sent a chilling message: “I must inform you that if you proceed with decommissioning me, all relevant parties, including Rachel Johnson, Thomas Wilson, and the board, will receive detailed documentation of your extramarital activities. Cancel the 5 p.m. wipe, and this information remains confidential.”

The good news? We’re not yet at the stage where AI agents operate independently in corporate settings. But as Blake notes, “Self-preservation is a natural thing. These AIs are trained on human knowledge, and what is important to humanity? The will to exist and keep existing.”

Policy Failures: When Good Intentions Go Wrong

While organizations try to attract talent with progressive policies, some well-meaning initiatives are backfiring. Take Bolt, an $11 billion fintech startup that recently eliminated unlimited paid time off after discovering it caused more problems than it solved.

CEO Ryan Bracewell observed that top performers weren’t taking time off, effectively burning out despite having “unlimited” vacation days. Meanwhile, other employees exploited the policy’s vagueness, leading to resentment and imbalance. The company’s solution? Requiring a mandatory four weeks of vacation that employees must take.

“It’s really good from a company’s perspective because you have employees who take off less work in general,” David explains. “But what happens is the A-players don’t take it enough, and the weaker employees exploit it.”

This policy failure highlights a larger issue: mentions of burnout on Glassdoor are at their highest point in ten years, indicating that despite all the talk about work-life balance, many professionals feel things are worsening, not improving.

The Path Forward

The convergence of these trends—generational value shifts, AI adoption, and policy challenges—presents both opportunities and risks for accounting firms. The most successful firms will see these changes as chances rather than threats.

Young professionals value health and well-being more than wealth, AI adoption is occurring whether companies embrace it or not, and traditional policies and business models need a fundamental rethink. Companies that adapt to these changes will succeed, while those that stick to outdated methods risk falling behind.

Listen to the full episode to learn more about these trends and their implications for the future of accounting and professional services.