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

Earmark CPE

Earn CPE Anytime, Anywhere

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

Podcasts

The Auditors Got Red Flags About $95 Million in Missing Funds and Signed Off Anyway

Earmark Team · February 2, 2026 ·

In the last episode of 2025 of The Accounting Podcast, hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary kicked off the conversation with an unexpected problem: America is running out of pennies. David’s friend owns sandwich shops in Tucson and literally can’t get pennies from the bank anymore. Businesses are being forced to round to the nearest nickel, and point-of-sale systems are scrambling to adapt.

“Square admits one fifth of all the transactions on Square are still paid in cash,” David noted, highlighting how this seemingly small issue affects millions of daily transactions. The government claims there are 300 billion pennies in circulation, but as David pointed out, “Obviously this isn’t true because businesses all over America do not have pennies to use in transactions.”

But the penny shortage was just the warm-up. The hosts quickly moved to a much bigger story about missing money: $95 million vanished at Evolve Bank, yet the auditors still signed off on clean financial statements.

$95 Million Went Missing While Auditors Said Everything Was Fine

Blake followed the Evolve Bank story for years, and recent Freedom of Information Act requests uncovered stunning details about what the auditors knew and ignored.

Evolve Bank is a chartered bank that worked with Synapse, a “banking as a service” company that wasn’t a bank itself but managed the technology connecting consumer apps like Yotta and Juno to actual banks. When you used these apps, you’d see your balance, but you had no idea which bank actually held your money. Synapse managed all those details.

“Everything worked great until April 2024, when Synapse filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy and shut down operations,” Blake explained. Suddenly, the banks and the apps couldn’t figure out where customer money actually was. Evolve froze withdrawals from thousands of accounts, leaving people unable to access their own money for months.

When banks examined Synapse’s records, they found massive problems. Between $65 and $95 million in customer funds couldn’t be traced to any bank. “Your Juno account might say $10,000, and the bank that’s supposed to have the $10,000 says, ‘We don’t have it,’” Blake explained.

The most damaging revelation came from the 2023 audit. When Crowe, Evolve’s auditor at the time, asked Synapse to confirm cash balances, the response should have triggered immediate action. Evolve listed 113 accounts, but Synapse was missing 29 accounts from daily data feeds. Synapse’s general counsel asked to discuss the discrepancies with Evolve’s leadership.

Evolve never responded to that request, yet Crowe still issued a clean audit opinion.

“Ninety five million is a lot of money,” Blake observed. “It would be 6% to 7% of Evolve’s total assets, likely over 100% of their annual net income, a double digit percentage of equity capital in some years. And typically, materiality would be 1 or 2% of assets.”

Are SOC 2 Reports Worthless?

The Evolve disaster led the hosts to question other compliance frameworks, particularly SOC certifications that companies display as badges of trustworthiness.

“My guess is Synapse had their SOC 2, because it’s not that hard to get a SOC 2,” Blake said. “According to my understanding, it’s really just a lot of documentation of the controls. But there’s not necessarily any confirmation that those controls are being followed.”

“They paid the money and got the badge for their website,” David observed. 

The hosts also discussed how a New Jersey accounting firm, Sax, took 18 months to inform nearly 250,000 people about a data breach. The firm claimed it followed standard procedures and saw no evidence the stolen data was misused, but for 18 months, affected individuals had no idea their personal information might be compromised.

“People could be using your stolen identity fraudulently 18 months before the accounting firm lets you know,” David said.

The problem is that while firms must have Written Information Security Plans (WISPs), they’re not necessarily legally required to execute them properly. “We focus on the wrong thing,” David argued. “We focus on having a WISP, not actually executing the WISP.”

Partners Don’t Know What Partners Make

In a lighter but equally revealing segment, Blake shared his favorite LinkedIn post of the year from Chase Birky, CEO and Co-founder of Dark Horse CPAs. Chase shared that almost a third of partners don’t know how much partners make at their own firms.

“How do CPAs not know how much they make? Isn’t that sort of what we do?” Chase wrote. The problem stems from a lack of transparency at many firms where partner compensation is calculated in a “black box” and communicated well after the fact. This secrecy is at least part of the reason talent leaves public accounting.

“I left because I got offered a job in tech that paid a lot more,” Blake said, sharing his own experience. “I didn’t know how much a partner made, and nobody could tell me what the path looked like.”

Should Companies Report Twice a Year Instead of Four Times?

The hosts also debated President Trump’s suggestion that U.S. companies should move from quarterly to semi-annual reporting, like much of the rest of the world.

Research from the UK showed that changing reporting frequency had “virtually no impact on companies’ internal investment decisions.” Studies also found that quarterly reporting creates “noisier data” that benefits sophisticated investors while hurting everyday investors.

“We’re always talking about how we have too much work to do in accounting and we’re pressed for time,” Blake said. “What better way to give ourselves more time than to make it two times a year instead of four?”

David wondered if less frequent reporting might reduce the pressure to play accounting games. “Monthly reporting probably puts pressure on people to sidestep the rules because it’s so fast and you have to perform.”

Looking Ahead to 2026

The hosts wrapped up with predictions for the coming year. David was skeptical about AI transforming bookkeeping. “I don’t see me doing bookkeeping at the end of 2026 any differently than I did in 2025, 2024, 2023, or 2022.”

Blake disagreed, pointing to new AI browsers that can actually navigate accounting software and complete tasks. “The time is doubling every seven months,” he explained. “Within the next year, we’re going to see AI able to complete tasks that take 15 to 20 minutes with 100% accuracy.”

David also predicted that OpenAI would strike a multi-million dollar deal with the AICPA, that at least two AI companies would fail, and, in his easiest prediction, “Intuit will tick off accountants in 2026.”

The episode covered far more ground than can be captured here, from the technical details of audit failures to the future of AI in accounting. For the complete discussion and all the insights Blake and David shared in their final episode of 2025, listen to the full episode of The Accounting Podcast.

Knowing Every Harassment Policy Won’t Save You When It Actually Happens

Earmark Team · February 2, 2026 ·

An HR expert with decades of experience found herself doing something she never expected: hiding from a retiree who kept asking for hugs. Despite her master’s degree in human resources and years of training others on harassment prevention, she went along with the unwanted contact until she caught herself actively avoiding him in the building.

“What is going on here?” Julie Thiel finally asked herself.

Julie shared this moment of clarity during a live recording of the She Counts podcast at the AFWA Women Who Count conference in Mesa, Arizona. Over 100 women in accounting filled the main stage room to tackle one of the profession’s most uncomfortable topics with Julie, hosts Questian Telka and Nancy McClelland, and employment attorney Kami Hoskins.

As the first of a two-part podcast series recorded live at the session shows, knowing every policy and law doesn’t protect you from freezing when harassment actually happens.

The Gap Between Knowledge and Action

Julie’s credentials should have been enough. She has a psychology degree, a Master’s in HR and years of experience conducting investigations and leading training sessions. She knew all the best practices.

None of it helped when the retiree walked past her office.

“Julie, can I get a hug?” seemed harmless at first so she said yes. He visited periodically, always stopping by with the same request. She kept agreeing.

Then she noticed her own troubling behavior.

“Anytime I saw him coming into the building, I would start going the other way,” Julie told the audience. “I found myself in a position where I felt uncomfortable hugging him. I didn’t want to hug him anymore.”

The woman who’d trained countless others was doing exactly what she’d tell them not to do: complying with unwanted contact, then avoiding the person instead of addressing it.

“I want you to know that we’re all in the same boat when it comes to this topic,” she said.

The session proved her point in real time. While Julie shared her story, Nancy had a sudden realization.

“It happened to me earlier today,” Nancy admitted. “Somebody said something really inappropriate related to the fact that we were going to be talking about this topic on the stage, and I laughed.”

She paused, processing the irony of laughing off harassment while preparing to discuss harassment prevention.

“I’m going to go back to that person and say, ‘hey, you know what? I shouldn’t have laughed there because that was a really good opportunity for me to teach you that it’s not okay to say things like that.’”

If experts freeze and laugh off inappropriate comments, what’s really happening? It stems from how deeply women are conditioned to keep everyone comfortable—often at their own expense.

Why We’re Conditioned to Comply

The disconnect between knowledge and action isn’t personal failure. It’s social programming that starts before anyone enters the workforce.

“We’re so conditioned to smile and laugh it off,” Questian observed. “To overlook things that bother us in order to de-escalate.”

Women learn early to smooth things over and prioritize others’ comfort. By the time we enter professional environments, these responses are automatic. They kick in before we register something is wrong.

Julie acknowledged that comfort levels vary. “I’m sure some people would think, ‘No big deal. I’m happy to hug him.’ But for me, I had to pay attention to that inner pause.”

That “inner pause” is the moment something feels off before our conditioning overrides it. Learning to recognize and trust that pause is where real work begins.

Kami reframed the challenge. “This stuff takes practice. It’s not a muscle we’re going to have overnight. The more you do it, the stronger your muscle gets and the easier it gets.”

She emphasized self-compassion. “We need to have a little grace and forgiveness for ourselves. If we sometimes laugh because we felt unsafe or needed to de-escalate a situation, that’s okay. Just keep practicing.”

The audience’s responses confirmed how much work remains. When asked how they’d feel about speaking up if they experienced or witnessed harassment, their word cloud was revealing. “Uncomfortable” dominated the screen, followed by scared, hesitant, and nervous.

But some responded with “confident” and “empowered,” proof that building this muscle is possible. Unexpectedly, “empathy” and “responsibility” also appeared, suggesting women felt duty to speak up for others even when speaking for themselves felt impossible.

Understanding the Spectrum of Harassment

Sexual harassment ranges from uncomfortable requests to explicit threats. Understanding this spectrum helps us recognize harassment even when it doesn’t match our mental image.

Kami emphasized the word “unwelcome.”

“Is the behavior unwelcome? If it’s unwelcome, it’s probably a problem,” she explained. “It doesn’t matter whether someone intended harm or whether others would be bothered. What matters is whether the behavior is unwelcome to you.”

The session’s two stories illustrated this spectrum perfectly.

Julie’s experience involved a retiree with no power over her employment. His hug requests started casually without explicit threats. No quid pro quo existed, yet the unwelcome behavior affected her enough that she avoided parts of her workplace.

A listener’s submitted story painted a darker picture. Her supervisor at a large accounting firm repeatedly asked her to lunch, then dinner, then begged her to spend time outside work. During layoff discussions, he made it explicit: “I have feelings for you. I want you to go out with me. I can help make sure you don’t get laid off.”

“That is a very different kind of sexual harassment than what Julie shared with us,” Nancy said, noting the contrast. I don’t know that I would have heard Julie’s story and thought, that’s sexual harassment.”

Both involved unwelcome behavior. Both deserved addressing. But they fall into different legal categories.

“The story you shared is an example of quid pro quo harassment, Latin meaning ‘something for something,’” Kami explained. “That’s when a person in a supervisory capacity conditions employment on being subjected to sexual harassment.”

This legal distinction matters for understanding options, but shouldn’t determine whether you speak up. Behavior can violate company policy without necessarily creating a legal claim.

“It doesn’t mean we should keep it to ourselves,” Kami emphasized. “We should still share that information and give our employer the opportunity to correct the behavior.”

What the Numbers Tell Us

The session’s polling data was sobering. While 37% of women nationally report experiencing sexual harassment according to McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace 2024, the accounting professionals in the room showed higher rates.

About 44% had personally experienced sexual harassment. Another 31% knew someone who had. Only about 20% had neither experienced it nor knew anyone who had.

“Ours was closer to 50%,” Nancy observed, noting the accounting profession appeared to exceed national averages.

Whether from self-selection or something specific about accounting, these numbers demand attention. They represent colleagues, partners, and sometimes ourselves.

Building Strength for Next Time

Traditional training rarely acknowledges that knowing the right answer and doing it in real time are different skills. Knowledge doesn’t equal action, our conditioning runs deep, and harassment exists on a spectrum where “unwelcome” is the standard that matters. Most importantly, boundary-setting is a muscle requiring practice, not perfection.

For women in accounting, these insights matter. We’re not failing because we don’t know policies. We’re struggling because we haven’t practiced the skills in real situations.

The goal isn’t perfection; it’s shrinking the gap between what we know and what we do. It’s making “uncomfortable” smaller on that word cloud while “confident” and “empowered” grow.

This conversation continues in part two, with practical reporting strategies, what actually happens when you go to HR, and navigating harassment as employees, employers, and business owners.

Listen to the full episode and return for part two. These women are building the roadmap we all need.

Resources for those experiencing harassment:

  • National Sexual Assault Hotline: 1-800-656-4673
  • National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233
  • National Suicide and Crisis Lifeline: 988

Company Vehicles, Cell Phones, and Office Snacks: What’s Actually Tax-Free for Employees

Earmark Team · February 2, 2026 ·

Have you ever had to explain to a client that the $35 gift card they gave each employee for the holidays must be reported as taxable compensation, but the $35 holiday ham they gave last year was completely tax-free? Welcome to the world of fringe benefit taxation, where seemingly identical gestures of employee appreciation can produce dramatically different tax consequences.

This counterintuitive example comes from Episode 18 of the Tax in Action podcast, where host Jeremy Wells, EA, CPA, continues his deep dive into IRC Section 132’s fringe benefit provisions. Building on a previous episode discussing no-additional-cost services and qualified employee discounts, this episode covers two benefit categories that touch nearly every business with employees: working condition fringes and de minimis fringe benefits.

Many employers want to provide benefits to their workforce, but the line between tax-free perks and reportable compensation often comes down to surprisingly specific details. Understanding these distinctions helps tax professionals guide clients toward meaningful benefits without triggering unexpected tax consequences.

When structured correctly, these benefits are deductible for the employer and excludable from the employee’s taxable compensation. Get the details wrong, and what was intended as a thoughtful perk becomes reportable wages subject to income, employment, and state taxes.

Working Condition Fringes Help Employees Do Their Jobs Better

The concept behind working condition fringes is straightforward. If an expense would be deductible under IRC Section 162 (ordinary business expenses) or Section 167 (depreciation) had the employee paid for it personally, the employer can provide that benefit tax-free. Some common examples include company vehicles for service technicians, professional development courses, business travel, and other things employees genuinely need to perform their jobs effectively.

But practitioners need to pay close attention to ensure the benefit relates specifically to that employee’s role with that employer. As Wells explains, if the expense instead supports outside professional activities, such as consulting privately, serving on an external board, or running a separate venture, the employer’s payment doesn’t qualify as an excludable working condition fringe. The employer would essentially be subsidizing something that benefits the employee’s outside activities rather than their own business operations.

Who Counts as an “Employee” (And Who Doesn’t)

The definition of “employee” for working condition fringes is broader and narrower than you might expect. It includes current employees, partners performing services for a partnership, directors of the employer, and even independent contractors performing services for the employer. This expanded definition allows businesses to provide qualifying benefits across different working relationships without triggering taxable compensation.

However, the definition is more restrictive than what applies to other fringe benefit categories. Former employees, spouses, and dependents can qualify for no-additional-cost services and qualified employee discounts discussed in Episode 17, but don’t make the cut for working condition fringes.

One additional group does qualify: bona fide volunteers at nonprofit organizations can receive working condition fringes without it being treated as compensation. This provides helpful flexibility for tax-exempt entities, though Wells emphasizes that understanding what organizations can provide to volunteers without converting them to compensated workers requires careful attention to the rules.

No Discrimination Rules Apply

Unlike many benefit programs, working condition fringes come with no nondiscrimination requirements. An employer can provide a company vehicle to one employee while not offering similar benefits to others. Highly compensated employees can receive working condition fringes that aren’t available to rank-and-file workers. This flexibility allows businesses to target these benefits where they’re most needed operationally.

Substantiation Requirements Still Matter

The absence of nondiscrimination rules doesn’t mean working condition fringes don’t have documentation requirements. If IRC Section 274 imposes strict substantiation requirements on a particular type of expense, those same requirements apply when the expense is provided as a working condition fringe.

Wells points to club memberships as a prime example. IRC Section 274(a)(3) disallows deductions for membership dues in clubs organized for business, pleasure, recreation, or other social purposes, such as country clubs, chambers of commerce, civic organizations, and similar groups. When clients argue these memberships generate business connections, Wells notes “just because something seems like it should be deductible, or it seems unfair that it’s not deductible, that’s just simply what the law says.”

An employer can still pay for such memberships, but they must include the value in the employee’s compensation and deduct it or exclude it from compensation and forgo the deduction entirely.

When providing cash advances for working condition fringes, employers must require employees to use the cash for specific deductible activities, verify correct use with receipts, and return any unspent cash. This differs significantly from de minimis fringes.

Getting the Details Right with Company Vehicles

Employer-provided vehicles are a common working condition fringe benefit. We’re not talking about business owners using vehicles for personal transportation, but true company vehicles like the trucks driven by HVAC technicians, the vans operated by plumbers, and vehicles used by pest control professionals.

The excludable portion is the total annual value of the vehicle multiplied by the percentage of business-use miles. “Even though it’s company owned, there still needs to be a written, contemporaneous mileage log,” Wells says, emphasizing a critical point. Digital tracking counts, but the documentation must exist.

When an employee keeps the vehicle overnight to make an early morning service call, that commute home and back to work counts as personal use. The substantiation requirements don’t relax simply because the employer holds the title.

If multiple employees share vehicles throughout the year, their combined legitimate business mileage counts in both the numerator and denominator of the business-use calculation. But if specific employees use designated vehicles during identifiable periods, the organization must maintain records separately.

Other Working Condition Fringes

Product testing is another excludable category with specific requirements. Employers must limit product availability to the testing period, require return of products afterward, and collect detailed employee reports. Notably, directors and independent contractors don’t qualify for this particular exclusion, so employers must report test products provided to them as compensation.

Job-related education qualifies as a working condition fringe when it meets requirements under IRC Section 127. Wells devoted Episode 7 entirely to deductible education costs, which provides deeper guidance on this topic.

Business travel expenses, including flights on employer-provided aircraft, can be excluded when legitimately deductible. But personal elements, such as tickets for children, personal destinations, or accompanying family members without documented business purpose, are includable in income.

For clients in higher-risk environments, enhanced security for company vehicles can qualify as working condition fringes. The key is documented specificity: general safety concerns don’t suffice. There must be evidence of actual threats, such as death threats, kidnapping risks, or recent violent incidents, and security must be part of a comprehensive 24-hour protection program.

De Minimis Fringe Benefits: When “Too Small to Count” Actually Counts

While working condition fringes help employees perform their jobs, de minimis fringes address the smaller perks that boost morale and show appreciation. The standard seems simple: if a benefit’s value is so small that tracking it would be unreasonable or administratively impracticable, employers can provide it tax-free.

But don’t let “too small to count” suggest this category operates without rules. The de minimis standard contains specific requirements, and one absolute prohibition that catches many employers off guard.

The Individual Employee Test

Frequency matters when determining whether a benefit qualifies as de minimis, and the analysis focuses on each individual employee. “Providing a daily meal to a single employee is not a de minimis fringe benefit with respect to that employee,” Wells explains, “even though if we were just looking at the number of meals provided annually to all employees, it might be a relatively small number.”

The exception comes when tracking individual frequency becomes administratively difficult. Wells offers the copying machine example. If an employer ensures at least 85% of use is for business purposes, any personal use qualifies as de minimis. Nobody expects employers to count every personal page, so these rules eliminate that administrative burden.

The Absolute Cash Equivalent Prohibition

Here’s where many well-intentioned employers stumble: cash and cash equivalents are never excludable as de minimis fringes. No exceptions. The rationale is, it’s never administratively impracticable to account for cash.

This creates counterintuitive outcomes that confuse clients. The holiday ham or turkey is the textbook de minimis fringe, literally cited by Congress when explaining IRC Section 132. But when one employer switched from holiday hams to $35 gift certificates for local grocery stores, the IRS ruled those certificates were cash equivalents and thus no longer excludable.

“Even though in terms of frequency and amount, it might appear de minimis, I can specifically and administratively identify how much was spent so that is never going to be excludable,” Wells emphasizes.

Office Snacks and the TCJA Changes

Coffee, donuts, and soft drinks in the office are another classic de minimis fringe benefit. So are occasional meals or meal money provided specifically for employees working overtime, with emphasis on “occasional” and the overtime connection. Company parties, picnics, and group meals (including guests) also qualify.

These categories generated confusion following the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. “I saw a lot of social media posts claiming the legislation made office snacks, donuts, and soft drinks nondeductible and includable. Neither one of those is true,” Wells says, clarifying an important misconception.

What actually changed is pre-TCJA, these items were 100% deductible. Post-TCJA, office snacks and occasional meals became 50% deductible. They’re still deductible, just at half the rate. They remain fully excludable from employee compensation.

What did become nondeductible after 2025 are expenses for employer-operated eating facilities—essentially cafeterias that charge employees for food. But basic office snacks are 50% deductible for employers and still tax-free for employees.

Employer-Provided Cell Phones

Cell phones occupy an interesting position, potentially qualifying under both working condition and de minimis rules. The key is why the employer provides the phone.

If they provide it so the employee can be on-call outside normal hours, then the business use qualifies as a working condition fringe and personal use as de minimis. As a result, the entire value is excludable for the employee and deductible for the employer.

However, phones provided to boost morale or included in employment contracts as compensation don’t qualify. The phone must serve the employer’s operational need for employee availability.

Holiday and Special Occasion Gifts

Employers can provide occasional, non-extravagant gifts for holidays, birthdays, achievements, illnesses, or family crises as excludable de minimis fringes. Wells notes these should be “one off or occasional, maybe annual. Probably not more often than that.”

But the cash equivalent prohibition applies fully here. A $35 gift basket is excludable. A $35 gift card to the employee’s favorite restaurant must be included in compensation. Same dollar amount, same thoughtful intent, completely different tax treatment.

Common Pitfalls and Non-Excludable Benefits

Wells identifies several benefits that commonly trip up employers who assume they’re tax-free:

  • Season tickets to sporting or theatrical events cross the line into reportable compensation, though a single occasional ticket might qualify as de minimis.
  • Commuting use of employer-provided vehicles remains personal use that must be tracked and potentially reported, even for company-owned vehicles used primarily for business.
  • Private country club or athletic facility memberships don’t qualify as excludable fringes, despite potential business networking value.
  • Group term life insurance on a spouse or child creates taxable compensation, as only coverage on the actual employee qualifies for favorable treatment.
  • Personal use of employer facilities like a beach condo or hunting lodge generates reportable income. Wells notes clients often want to rent cabins for “strategic planning” retreats, but “it would be a stretch to say that was an actual business expense.”

The Documentation Imperative

Throughout the episode, Wells emphasizes that “documentation is key.” Even without nondiscrimination requirements, written policies and records protect both employers and employees.

Best practices include:

  • Maintaining detailed records of what benefits were provided, when, and to whom
  • Tracking benefit values even for seemingly trivial items
  • Ensuring you’ve satisfied substantiation requirements under IRC Section 274
  • Documenting eligibility criteria in writing

“It’s always best practice to clearly document in writing who earns what kinds of benefits,” Wells advises, “even if there are no nondiscrimination rules for the particular kind of benefit.”

Turning Fringe Benefit Rules Into Client Value

Working condition fringes and de minimis benefits offer employers meaningful ways to support their workforce beyond traditional compensation. Company vehicles enable service technicians. Cell phones keep employees connected. Office coffee makes the workplace pleasant. Holiday gifts acknowledge contributions. When structured correctly, these benefits are deductible for employers and invisible on employee W-2s.

For tax professionals, mastering these distinctions creates immediate value for business clients. Every employer wants to provide meaningful benefits. Guiding them toward tax-efficient structures while avoiding pitfalls demonstrates expertise that justifies advisory relationships.

Listen to the full Tax in Action episode for Jeremy Wells’ complete analysis, including additional examples and nuances not covered here.

The End of Data Entry and What It Means for Your Tax Practice

Earmark Team · January 28, 2026 ·

Elizabeth Beastrom left public accounting 30 years ago because she was sick of rekeying data into tax returns. Now, as President of Tax and Accounting Professionals at Thomson Reuters, she works to make sure no accountant has to do that mind-numbing work ever again.

“I was a lazy CPA,” she admits with a laugh during this episode of the Earmark Podcast. “I didn’t want to spend my time doing work that I didn’t think was necessary.”

In this conversation with host Blake Oliver, Elizabeth and Kirat Sekhon, Thomson Reuters’ Head of Technology, map out their vision for automating the entire tax workflow, from gathering documents to delivering returns. They want listeners to know that AI-enabled firms are going to outcompete everyone else, and the shift from compliance to advisory isn’t optional anymore.

Why Tax Firms Can’t Keep Doing Things the Old Way

The numbers tell the story. Fewer people are taking the CPA exam while more accountants retire every year. Meanwhile, tax complexity keeps growing, which means more demand for services with fewer people to do the work. Throw in private equity firms buying up practices and pushing for efficiency, and you’ve got a perfect storm.

But it’s not just about headcount. The new generation of accountants expects modern tools that actually work together—not the clunky desktop software their predecessors put up with.

“They expect to use intuitive and connected tools,” Kirat explains, “so they have a better experience while they deliver value to their customers.”

So why has tax software stayed stuck in the desktop era while cloud accounting tools have taken off? Kirat points to two reasons. First, tax calculations are hard to get right, and once you build something that works, nobody wants to break it. Second, accountants themselves haven’t pushed for change. When you’re working 80 to 100 hours during busy season, the last thing you want is to learn new software.

“The term SALY—same as last year—still comes through,” Elizabeth notes. “You found a way to do it and you like to replicate that. Change is hard, especially when you have to introduce that to the firm when you’re working 80 to 100 hours a week.”

But resistance to change is becoming dangerous. Elizabeth’s own exit from the profession 30 years ago shows what happens when the work becomes too tedious. Back then, she discovered she loved the advisory side, including talking to clients, understanding their businesses, and making recommendations that actually helped them improve. But she was stuck doing data entry.

“I would spend time talking to my customers,” she recalls. “Some of my best inputs came from the people in accounts payable or accounts receivable. I would get a detailed understanding of their process.” But then she’d have to go back to rekeying tax data, and the contrast was too much.

Building the “Bookends” Around Tax Prep

Thomson Reuters isn’t trying to fix one piece of the tax workflow; they’re automating the whole thing. Their strategy focuses on creating what Elizabeth calls “strong bookends” around their core tax engines (GoSystem Tax, CST, and UltraTax).

The front bookend came through their acquisition of SurePrep three years ago. Practitioners dump all their client documents into the system, and SurePrep automatically classifies them, pulls out the relevant numbers, creates a binder for review, and fills in the tax software. No more manual data entry.

“That’s a huge time savings when you don’t have to spend time doing all of that manual data entry,” Kirat says, “and they can actually focus on the return.”

The back bookend arrived with SafeSend, acquired earlier this year. It handles return delivery, e-signatures, and payment collection, eliminating what Elizabeth remembers as the nightmare of printing, mailing, and faxing documents back and forth 30 years ago.

What’s different about Thomson Reuters’ approach is they’re keeping these tools open to work with competitors’ software too, not just their own tax products.

“It is an open, curated ecosystem,” Elizabeth emphasizes. “If customers find value in part of their workflow, we want to make sure we connect to it.”

Beyond just automating existing steps, they’re trying to eliminate unnecessary work entirely. Take the client questionnaire—that paper organizer Blake’s mom still fills out by hand every year. Thomson Reuters wants to “kill the questionnaire” by using AI to pre-populate information from prior returns and only ask for what’s actually new or missing.

The next frontier is what Kirat calls “agentic AI,” systems that don’t just handle one task but orchestrate entire workflows. These AI agents can use multiple Thomson Reuters products in sequence, making decisions along the way to get a return from start to finish with minimal human intervention.

But everything the AI does needs to be auditable. Kirat stresses that any AI handling tax work must show exactly what decisions it made and why.

“Our customers expect the work product of an accountant to be 100% accurate,” she explains. “Without providing that audit log with the decisions and choices and confidence levels, we’re missing the mark.”

Blake agrees enthusiastically, sharing his frustration with current AI tools that don’t show their reasoning. “I want to know why it matched this transaction,” he says. “There’s an AI conversation for each one of these transactions. Why not give that to us?”

The Shift to Advisory Can’t Wait

If machines can prepare returns faster and more accurately than humans, what exactly are clients paying for? Two-thirds of Thomson Reuters’ customers say they want to shift to advisory services, but most don’t know how to actually do it.

Enter Ready to Advise, launched in June 2024. The tool takes everything from a completed return and analyzes it against potential tax strategies based on that client’s specific situation and goals.

“It will quantify the savings,” Elizabeth explains. “It will ask for more information to get to a range. It will allow you to have that discussion where you can say, ‘Hey Blake, I noticed from your 1120-S filing some potential strategies you should take.'”

Then it walks you through implementing those strategies and produces client-ready documentation. For firms struggling to move beyond compliance, this is huge.

But technology alone won’t fix the business model problem. Clients have been trained to expect strategic advice for free. “I might call my accountant and say, ‘Hey, tell me what this big beautiful bill does for me this year?,’ which is code for don’t charge me for this,” Elizabeth says, capturing the conundrum perfectly.

That’s where Practice Forward comes in. It’s Thomson Reuters’ tool for helping firms understand their worth and develop advisory pricing models. The goal is shifting from hourly billing for returns to year-round advisory subscriptions.

Ready to Advise also solves a talent problem. Traditionally, you needed years of experience before you could offer meaningful tax advice. But with AI assistance grounded in Checkpoint’s content (maintained by over 4,500 subject matter experts), newer staff can contribute to advisory work much sooner.

“That junior associate’s experience, paired with all the knowledge that there is available in generative AI today, is incredibly powerful,” Kirat notes.

Blake shares a personal example that drives home the value of advisory over compliance. His tax preparer advised setting up a C-Corp to potentially qualify for QSBS treatment, which could save millions in taxes someday.

“I can’t even quantify the value of that,” Blake says. “But that’s why I’m willing to pay thousands of dollars for a tax return. It’s that insight, not the return.”

Meanwhile, DIY tax software keeps getting better. Blake describes doing a business return himself using consumer software with ChatGPT open for research. The same process would have taken hours of manual work just a few years ago.

Firms that stick to just preparing returns are going to get squeezed from both ends.

“AI-enabled professionals and firms, they’re going to outcompete and outperform,” Elizabeth warns, “because they’re going to be able to do it faster, better and get to this advisory, which our clients want.”

What to Do Right Now

So where should a traditional tax firm start? Elizabeth recommends figuring out what you hate doing.

“What are your pain points that you hate to do?” she asks. “There’s a pretty high likelihood that I or a talented person on my team is going to be able to say, ‘This is how we can solve that for you.’”

The technology exists today. SurePrep can handle document gathering. SafeSend can automate delivery. Ready to Advise can help you identify tax-saving opportunities. CoCounsel can answer complex questions using curated, expert-verified content. The audit logs are there to verify everything the AI does.

The harder change is mental: accepting that the compliance work that defined the profession for decades is becoming commoditized, and the future belongs to firms that embrace automation as the foundation for higher-value advisory services.

Elizabeth even suggests bringing these concepts into accounting education to attract new talent. Currently, tax courses focus on rules and calculations rather than strategy. After all, accounting is still “the language of business,” as Elizabeth was told as an undergraduate. The difference is that AI can now handle the grammar and spelling, freeing professionals to focus on telling the story.

The transformation won’t be easy, but it’s not optional. As Elizabeth learned when she left the profession out of frustration with mundane tasks, talented people won’t stick around if the work doesn’t engage them. The good news is that automation finally makes it possible to eliminate the drudgery and focus on what really matters: helping clients succeed.

Listen to the full conversation with Blake, Elizabeth, and Kirat for more insights on preparing your firm for the automated future of tax.

Two-Thirds of Accounting Staff Hate Private Equity—But Partners Love It

Earmark Team · January 28, 2026 ·

Two-thirds of partners at private equity-backed accounting firms say they’re satisfied with their arrangements. But ask the staff actually doing the work, and you’ll hear a different story. Over half are dissatisfied, with one director calling the situation “a dumpster fire.”

This stark disconnect emerged from an Accounting Today survey discussed on The Accounting Podcast by hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary. The episode also revealed a disconnect in pricing. Tax preparers charge an average of just $280 for a basic 1040 (CPAs) or $228 (enrolled agents). These numbers had David asking incredulously, “Where are these people? I’ve never been quoted this low of a price.”

The Private Equity “Dumpster Fire”

The numbers from Accounting Today’s survey reveal a profession divided. Among partners and owners at PE-backed firms, 67% report satisfaction (40% very satisfied and 27% somewhat satisfied). But look at staff responses and it’s almost a perfect mirror image: 52% are either somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

The anonymous comments from survey respondents paint an even bleaker picture. “It is a dumpster fire,” said one director at a large firm. “Low morale, people leaving, bonuses cut, pay raises eliminated or lowered.”

Another director at a very large firm agreed. “It’s horrible and dysfunctional. Losing clients, staff leaving, and partners pay more attention to their bank account than taking care of staff. Most partners are counting the days until they can leave with their money in hand.”

Perhaps most concerning for the profession’s future, 64% of respondents believe private equity will have a negative impact on the integrity and independence of public accounting firms. Another 56% think clients will suffer negative consequences.

“The industry will take a hit and the clients will take a hit,” David noted. “That’s not going to bode well for everybody else.”

It’s worth noting that fewer than 400 of the 44,000 US CPA firms have taken private equity investment, so less than 1%. But these tend to be larger, high-performing practices, and the trend only started accelerating around 2022.

Tax Preparers Leave Money on the Table

While PE-backed firms wrestle with cultural upheaval, smaller practitioners face a different challenge: chronic underpricing. The National Association of Tax Professionals’ 2025 survey reveals CPAs charge an average of just $280 for a basic 1040. Enrolled agents charge even less at $228, while non-credentialed preparers average $185.

These numbers shocked David. “Since I stopped doing my own taxes and pay an accounting firm to do them, it’s $1,200 to $1,300 a return. I’ve never been quoted this low of a price.”

Still, the survey contained some encouraging news. When preparers raise fees, clients rarely leave. Melissa Bowman, an EA in Ohio, increased prices 12-20% across the board twice since 2020, and “not one client left because of pricing.”

“If not one client leaves after you implement a substantial price increase like that, you’re still underpriced,” Blake pointed out.

One particularly surprising finding is that 18% of preparers don’t charge extra for state returns. “TurboTax has trained 45 million taxpayers over the last 30 years that you have to pay extra to get your state return done,” David noted. “The fact that almost 20% don’t charge for doing the state return seems crazy to me.”

Billion-Dollar Audit Relationships Raise Independence Questions

The independence concerns raised by private equity pale next to the decades-long, billion-dollar relationships between the Big Four and their largest clients. Deloitte has audited Microsoft since 1986, collecting $78 million in 2025 alone.

“This is like a $2 billion relationship between Deloitte and Microsoft over the last 40 years,” David calculated. “With that much money involved, the motivations just can’t be aligned with the public.”

The situation gets more complex when you consider that these firms also sell consulting services. “Doesn’t Deloitte sell Microsoft consulting type services and they implement Microsoft Copilot AI type things, but they also audit Microsoft?” David asked.

Blake acknowledged the concern. “These firms are audit firms, but they’re also consulting firms. And consulting teams are some of the biggest resellers now of the technology their clients develop.”

Change may be coming whether firms want it or not. With Microsoft cutting 15,000 jobs in 2025, David predicts inevitable pressure on audit fees. “They’ll go back to their auditor and say, ‘we don’t want to pay this much for our audit. We want you to use AI,’” David predicts.

What’s Next for the Profession?

The AICPA is seeking comments on ethics rules updates for alternative practice structures—the arrangements that enable private equity investment. But there’s a catch. Despite announcing the comment period weeks ago, the actual exposure draft won’t be available until December 29.

“Today is the 23rd,” David pointed out. “If it’s not done today, when are they doing this? Christmas Eve, Christmas Day?”

David predicted the process could drag on. “This could take a decade,” he suggested.

The accounting profession is under pressure from private equity reshaping firm culture, chronic underpricing in tax prep, and billion-dollar audit relationships raising independence questions. For practitioners, there is a clear need to raise prices and watch the PE developments carefully.

For the complete discussion, including a story about a Scottish police officer’s heroic retrieval of evidence from a toilet and concerns about IRS readiness for tax season, listen to the full episode of The Accounting Podcast.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 7
  • Page 8
  • Page 9
  • Page 10
  • Page 11
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 48
  • Go to Next Page »

Copyright © 2026 Earmark Inc. ・Log in

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