Earmark CPE

Earn CPE Anytime, Anywhere

Blake Oliver

Stop Losing Money on Cleanup Work by Automating the Parts That Don’t Need You

· ·

Cleanup and catch-up work is among the most in-demand services accounting firms can sell, and among the hardest to deliver profitably. That was the starting point for a recent webinar led by Megan Reid, a 15-year accounting veteran who started in Big Four, moved through private industry, and now works on the firm enablement team at Digits.

In the webinar, Megan demonstrated how AI-native accounting tools can transform cleanup engagements from time-intensive projects into scalable service offerings. She built a client file from scratch, imported raw PDF bank statements, and walked through an entire cleanup workflow in real time.

Why cleanup work kills profit margins

“Cleanup is obviously valuable work and it’s hard to scale,” Megan said, framing the core challenge clearly. New clients almost always arrive with some sort of mess to clean up. Maybe you have 18 months of uncategorized transactions or transactions that haven’t been posted from the bank feed. You want to take the engagement, but you know it’s going to be hard to make it profitable.

“We always uncover more skeletons in the closet than we think,” Megan noted during the demonstration. If you’re billing fixed fees, you get squeezed by unpredictable hours. Clients want fast turnarounds. Your teams are leaner. “You’re asked to do more with less,” she said.

“Business owners need that work to be done,” Megan pointed out. But the question is “whether or not your workflow lets you take them profitably.”

Breaking down a traditional cleanup shows where the hours go:

  • Gathering data
  • Importing it or connecting feeds
  • Categorizing tons of transactions
  • Reconciling accounts
  • Resolving exceptions
  • Making adjusting entries
  • Reviewing everything with your client
  • Delivering the final report

“In a typical 12-month cleanup or catch-up, you spend the majority of your time categorizing and reconciling transactions,” Megan explained. These tasks are also “the most repetitive, pattern-based parts of the job, which is exactly what AI is good at.”

From blank file to categorized transactions

Megan started her demonstration with a completely blank client file, essentially just an empty ledger. She then showed how to handle a common scenario in which a new client hands over a stack of PDF bank statements with no bank login credentials.

She dragged and dropped the first PDF bank statement directly into Digits. “It is extracting all that data from the bank statement, booking it and categorizing it as well,” Megan explained as the system processed the document.

The AI extracted transactions, identified vendors and customers (called “parties” in Digits), populated company logos and descriptions, attached website links, and categorized each transaction into the appropriate account. Megan noted the system pulls from models trained on “more than 800 trillion dollars’ worth of transactions.”

After uploading statements for June through October, hundreds of transactions flowed in. When processing finished, only 12 were flagged for review. “Instead of manually clearing bank feeds,” Megan said, “come here and look at the exceptions.”

These were transactions that required confirmation. Megan clicked into one from Swift Courier Services. The AI suggested “contractors and consultants.” She confirmed it with one click.

From there, the system natively learned from that categorization. It immediately found two similar transactions and offered to update them together. The exception list dropped from 12 to 8 in seconds.

Bank reconciliation without the manual work

Megan demonstrated three ways to get bank statements into the system for reconciliation. You can connect directly to banks like Mercury, Wells Fargo, Chase, and US Bank, which pull statements automatically via API. You can drag and drop PDF statements anywhere in the product. Or you can use email ingestion, where each client gets a unique email address to forward statements.

She uploaded the June statement by dragging it onto the reconciliation screen. The system read the PDF, extracted every line item, and verified each against the ledger. Megan explained that the system uses “pixel bounding boxes” to match statement entries to ledger entries.

June needed one manual step: adding a beginning balance entry that the system couldn’t infer without a connected bank account. Megan created the entry directly in the reconciliation screen. “Unlike legacy systems, where you may have to have three different tabs open and make changes and then come back and refresh, everything can be done directly in here.”

Then she uploaded July’s statement and navigated away. When she returned, it was done. “The statement was uploaded by me. The auto reconciliation was kicked off by Digits and even finalized by Digits,” she showed in the timeline view.

For larger cleanups, Megan recommended uploading multiple statements at one time. Handle any beginning balances in the first month, then subsequent months often complete automatically.

Review tools that surface what matters

Even with AI handling categorization, accountants still need to review and sign off. “It doesn’t replace the accountant. It just removes that tedious work so that you can focus on those judgment calls,” Megan emphasized.

She demonstrated several review approaches. The general ledger view shows all transactions organized like a trial balance, including assets, liabilities, equity, revenue, and expenses. You can filter by status, amount, source, department, or location. Bulk updates work on hundreds of transactions at once.

Megan said the vendors and customers views are her favorite. They each flag two critical items:

  • New vendors or customers: Any vendor (or customer) the AI sees for the first time in your selected period
  • Split categorizations: Vendors (or customers) whose transactions appear in multiple categories

“I just need to have eyes on things it has not seen before,” Megan explained. Even if the AI categorized with high confidence, you have final review and say on how it was categorized..

For transactions needing client input, the collaboration happens in one place. Megan showed how to comment on any transaction: “Hey client, what is this for?” The client receives an email with a link, can respond directly in Digits or reply to the email, and the response appears on the platform. “All the collaboration is centralized in one location,” she said, “instead of you having to manage a ton of emails and download Excel files.”

Delivering professional reports, not data dumps

The final step Megan demonstrated was creating custom reports. While the financials inside Digits update live as transactions flow in, cleanup engagements need a formal deliverable, a static document that locks the numbers in place.

Megan built one on screen. She added a cover page, used AI to draft an executive summary, embedded links to the client’s checklist, and configured the financial statements with period comparisons and trend lines. The system includes “hover to discover” insights that show period-over-period changes and what drove them.

When you need to make adjustments after sending a draft, you create a new version. “Any adjustments you’ve made in Digits will then update directly to this report,” Megan explained. Publishing the final version removes the draft watermark and notifies the client.

The platform tracks everything, including when you created the report, when you published it, when the client viewed it, and all comments from either party. You have a complete record of the deliverable and the conversation around it.

“We’ve done 12 months of cleanup in an hour and a half instead of days,” Megan concluded.

What this means for your firm

The key takeaways from Megan’s demonstration show how cleanup engagements can become profitable:

  • AI categorizes the vast majority of transactions automatically, flagging only true exceptions
  • Bank reconciliations can run automatically when you upload statements
  • The system learns instantly from every correction without rules to build or maintain
  • Your time shifts to reviewing anomalies, making judgment calls, and delivering polished reports

One practical consideration came up during Q&A. When asked about importing messy QuickBooks Online data, Megan confirmed that direct QBO migration exists but cautioned, “You maybe don’t want the AI to learn off of really messy data. You maybe just want to start fresh.” The system uses imported data for baseline training, so starting clean might make more sense for particularly messy files.

For firms trying to grow, this changes the economics of client acquisition. Every prospect with messy books becomes an opportunity rather than a capacity problem. When you can handle cleanup work profitably, predictably, and consistently, you can say yes to more engagements while maintaining margins.

Watch the full on-demand webinar to see Megan’s complete demonstration from blank file to published financials. If you have cleanup engagements in your pipeline right now, consider what your workflow could look like when the repetitive work is automated.

Why Are Big Four Firms Laying Off Partners When There Aren’t Enough Accountants to Go Around?

· ·

The accounting profession is facing turbulence on multiple fronts. KPMG is laying off roughly 100 audit partners in the US, while the best artificial intelligence available still gets one out of every five accounting tasks wrong.

In episode 485 of The Accounting Podcast, hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary unpack these converging stories that show the challenges and opportunities facing the profession. From venture-backed firms abandoning their “automate everything” model to a heated controversy over CPE standards with NASBA, the episode paints a complex picture of an industry in transition.

The Hard Truth About AI’s Current Capabilities

A new benchmark study from DualEntry tested 19 AI models across 101 real accounting workflows, and the results are interesting. Claude Opus 3.5, the current darling of AI enthusiasts, achieved the best performance at 79% accuracy. GPT-4o from OpenAI came in slightly behind at 77%. For context, GPT-4 scored only about 40% on the same tasks. It’s progress, but still nowhere near the reliability accounting demands.

The tests covered transaction classification, journal entry creation, bank reconciliations, and month-end close procedures. As Blake pointed out, the problem compounds. “It’s not like you’re automating 80% of the work because you have to clean up that other 20% the AI messed up.” Those errors cascade through financial statements and create cleanup work that erodes efficiency gains.

David put it in relatable terms. “If you had a human employee and ten hours of the week their work was just wrong, you’d probably freak out.”

The gap between 79% and acceptable accuracy for unsupervised work remains enormous. AI can assist and accelerate, but it can’t yet operate independently in accounting.

Tech Firms Abandon the “Automate Everything” Dream

The accuracy issue explains why venture-backed accounting firms are abandoning their original models. Decimal, which raised significant capital and even acquired KPMG Spark’s client base, pivoted away from providing services directly. Instead, they franchise their technology stack to independent firms that handle the actual client work.

“You can’t have SaaS valuations and raise money when you’re a human service business,” David explained, listing the other casualties, including Bench, ScaleFactor, Visor Tax, and Botkeeper. “We’ve seen this over and over again.”

Pilot made a similar move about six months ago with its “local partners” program that lets small practices use Pilot’s technology rather than Pilot doing the work itself. The technology is valuable, but human expertise is still essential.

Meanwhile, traditional players are moving in. H&R Block’s new CEO wants to transform the company from a once-a-year tax relationship to a year-round partner offering bookkeeping, payroll, and business support. Collective is buying OpenLedger. Even a fractional HR provider Austin Alliance Group wants into the bookkeeping space.

This sparked an interesting debate between the hosts. When discussing whether AI will handle routine work while humans focus on advisory, David pushed back. “I think it’s the opposite. Humans will be more involved in the data entry and the compiling of data. AI is really good at just taking scattered numbers and data, unstructured data and summarizing it, which arguably is advisory.”

Blake disagreed, pointing to a real-world example. A San Francisco store let an AI agent named Luna make operational decisions. Luna understaffed during busy periods, over-ordered candles, and lost $13,000. “AI doesn’t have memory the way people do,” Blake explained. Without context and accumulated experience, AI struggles with strategic decisions.

Big Four Layoffs, Demotions, and Massive Fines

While tech firms pivot, the Big Four face their own challenges. KPMG cut roughly 100 partners from its US audit practice (about 10% of audit partners) after too few accepted voluntary early retirement. The firm calls it “multiyear rightsizing,” but as David asked, “Does audit demand ever actually decrease?”

The situation is similar in the UK, where KPMG and EY started demoting equity partners to salaried positions. “Getting to partner at a Big Four firm used to mean a job for life,” Blake noted. Now that security is disappearing.

PwC faces different troubles. They’re paying a $166 million fine related to their audit of the China Evergrande Group, the collapsed property developer accused of inflating revenue by $82 billion. PwC audited them for over ten years before resigning in January 2023. As David observed, they probably made far more than $166 million from the engagement.

PwC is also ending its fully remote option for US tax staff, requiring three days in the office starting July 2026. Going Concern speculates this might be a way to thin headcount without announcing layoffs. Remote workers either need to relocate or quit.

The NASBA Controversy: A Debate Over CPE Standards

One of the episode’s most heated discussions centered on a demand letter Blake received from NASBA regarding comments he made at an AICPA conference. While demonstrating how to use AI to create CPE courses, Blake suggested the traditional approach of creating learning objectives first, then content, was “backward.” He argued it made more sense to let experts teach, then create the objectives based on what they teach.

NASBA’s letter accused him of making “unfavorable, unprofessional, or inappropriate comments” and demanded he cease such remarks immediately.

“If there’s any place for a discussion about NASBA policies, it should be at a conference with 200 L&D people from all the big accounting firms,” David argued. The hosts expressed frustration that NASBA treats different pedagogical approaches as inappropriate rather than worthy of professional debate.

“The pendulum has swung too far towards regulation and too far away from learning,” David said, noting how CPE often becomes just checking boxes rather than actual education. Blake shared a copy of his response to NASBA on his blog. In it, he asks NASBA to explain why expressing a different educational philosophy constitutes unprofessional behavior.

Where the Shortage Hits Hardest

A new index from Sam’s List reveals which states face the worst accountant shortages. Nevada tops the list with just 1.75 accountants per 1,000 residents and 139 professionally prepared returns per accountant, the highest ratio in the study. Nevada’s accounting workforce also fell nearly 30% from 2019 to 2024.

“Sounds like it’s a state accountants don’t want to live in,” David observed. “Accountants probably don’t want that Vegas gambling lifestyle energy.”

While Nevada has the worst per-capita shortage, Texas needs almost 25,000 additional accountants. This puzzled the hosts, given Texas’s population boom from high-tax states. “Are the benefits just not that good, and accountants see through it?” David wondered.

On the flip side, Washington, D.C. has nearly 14 accountants per 1,000 residents, almost ten times Nevada’s rate. New York has a surplus of 27,000 accountants above the national baseline.

Looking Ahead

The picture emerging from these shows AI is transforming accounting but not replacing accountants. The 79% accuracy ceiling, the pivot of tech-first firms, and the Big Four’s struggles all point to the need to find the right collaboration between humans and AI.

For firm leaders, the franchise and partnership models emerging from companies like Decimal and Pilot may offer a more sustainable path than pure automation. For individual practitioners, the message is encouraging. While AI raises the floor on routine tasks, human judgment, experience, and adaptability remain irreplaceable.

Listen to the full episode of The Accounting Podcast for the complete discussion, including more details on the NASBA controversy, state shortage data, and whether Kentucky’s elimination of the 150-hour rule signals the beginning of the end for that requirement nationwide.

The Accounting Profession’s Favorite Performance Metrics Are Now Dangerously Misleading

· ·

PwC Australia cut partners by 35% and staff by nearly 40% since 2023, yet partner income went up 6%. Meanwhile, the IRS says it just had its “most successful filing season in history” with 25% fewer employees. Fewer people are doing more work than ever. But the accounting profession’s core systems for measuring performance, deciding who to hire, and tracking technology investments were built for a different world.

In a recent episode of The Accounting Podcast, hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary talk about a profession transforming from the inside out. From IRS staffing cuts and Big Four workforce reductions to outdated metrics and licensing bottlenecks, we’re seeing technology race ahead while the infrastructure lags.

Tax Season Success Story (with a Catch)

IRS CEO Frank Bisignano told the Senate Finance Committee that the 2025 filing season was remarkably successful despite the agency losing about a quarter of its staff. The IRS received more than 134 million individual returns, 98% of which were filed electronically. Over 90% of filers got refunds in under 21 days, and the average refund jumped 11% to over $3,400.

The agency credited technology upgrades and AI for the performance boost. Using AI and data analytics to identify underreporting, the IRS sent 500,000 letters that prompted corrections, generating $250 million in additional collections. Enforcement revenue was up 12%, and amended return processing improved from six weeks to just three days. Five noncompliance cases alone brought in $2 billion.

“Just five cases and $2 billion,” Blake noted. “That shows there are some real whales out there when it comes to not paying your taxes.”

But David pointed out an interesting wrinkle. There’s still no confirmed IRS commissioner. Bisignano is serving as CEO without congressional approval, yet Congress seems to have accepted this arrangement with little pushback.

Managing by an Outdated Scorecard

For decades, accounting firms have relied on metrics known as LUMBAR: Leverage, Utilization, Margin, Billing rate, and Realization. These metrics made sense when firms billed by the hour and success meant maximizing billable hours. But as AI compresses work time and firms shift to fixed fees and advisory services, these metrics become misleading.

Douglas Slaybaugh argued in Accounting Today that firms need to track different categories entirely. Instead of hours and billing rates, he suggests measuring:

  • Value creation, like advisory revenue as a share of total revenue
  • Automation rates
  • Redefined leverage, like revenue per employee rather than staff-to-partner ratios
  • Organizational health, including “regrettable turnover,” or losing people you wanted to keep
  • Client relationships

Blake was blunt about why traditional metrics fail. “If you go over or under on a job based on a job profitability calculation, which is based on hours, it doesn’t actually change anything in the firm because your staff costs are fixed.” When staff are salaried and clients pay fixed fees, being “over budget” on hours is meaningless. “We get so in the weeds,” he added. “We lose the forest for the trees.”

David pushed further, comparing it to Apple before Steve Jobs returned. The company had separate profit-and-loss statements for every product, optimizing each individually while missing the bigger picture. Jobs collapsed it all into one P&L, recognizing Apple as an ecosystem. “Why do you need all these metrics?” David asked. “Focus on the big picture of your firm.”

The shift is already happening at big firms. Client accounting services is the top growth driver for Top 100 firms for the third straight year, with 85% of firms reporting CAS growth. These services now include cash flow forecasting, budgeting, and strategic finance. That work doesn’t fit hourly billing models, yet many firms still try to manage these engagements with traditional utilization targets.

Licensing Rules as a Talent Bottleneck

Current CPA licensing creates what Jack Castonguay of Hofstra University calls a one-way street: firms can hire accountants and train them in AI, but they can’t easily bring in AI experts and train them in accounting.

“The US licensure model almost forces us to start with accountants and teach them AI skills,” Jack wrote in Bloomberg Tax. “It’s good to have accountants who are well versed in AI, but it would be better to also have AI experts trained in accounting. We should create space for both.”

Jack delivered a sharp observation about recent reforms. “We took away the 150-hour moat around the profession, but ultimately built a wall higher for non-accounting majors seeking to become CPAs.”

Blake agreed strongly. “If you can learn accounting theory on your own and pass the CPA exam, why do we require you to go take all these courses? The CPA exam is supposed to test the knowledge. And if you got the knowledge in another way, why do we care?”

The problem plays out in real life. A viewer shared that, despite having a business degree with an accounting minor, Arizona’s requirements and the need for CPA sign-offs create additional barriers for those with non-traditional backgrounds, such as military service.

There’s some progress. Maryland and Nevada joined roughly 30 states adopting alternative CPA pathways that require a bachelor’s degree, two years of experience, and passing the exam, without the 150-hour rule. But David expressed frustration. “We just got past the 150-hour rule, and we’re going to be on this debate and treadmill now for the next five years.”

Meanwhile, big firms aren’t waiting. Beyond PwC Australia’s dramatic cuts, Deloitte US slashed benefits for non-client-facing staff, halving parental leave from 16 to 8 weeks, cutting PTO by five days, and eliminating the $50,000 adoption and surrogacy benefit.

“What if this is just a way to get people to quit so you don’t have to lay them off from AI later on?” David wondered. The timing makes sense. While 51% of workers said they’d quit over return-to-office mandates in 2025, that number has crashed to just 7% in 2026. Workers are scared, and employers know it.

Betting on AI Without Measuring Results

A Thomson Reuters survey of 1,500 professional services respondents across 27 countries revealed only 18% track AI’s return on investment. Forty-two percent don’t measure at all, and 40% aren’t sure whether they do.

“Pretty much 80% aren’t tracking the return on their AI spend,” David said.

Those who do measure focus on the wrong things. Seventy-seven percent track cost savings, 64% track employee usage, but only 26% track client satisfaction, 23% track revenue growth, and just 17% track new business generation.

“They’re not tracking the correct metrics in their firms,” David noted. “This is not an accounting firm problem. This is professional services.”

The risks of poor AI implementation are real. Deloitte faces investigation in Newfoundland and Labrador after a resident discovered its $1.6 million healthcare report contained AI-generated fake citations. This is at least the third Big Four AI incident.

“They’re selling AI consulting services,” David said, “and then they prove they can’t do it themselves.”

The measurement problem extends beyond AI. Annual recurring revenue (ARR), the metric driving virtually every subscription company’s valuation, has no GAAP definition or standardized calculation. Companies define it however they want. A startup CEO recently made headlines for simply making up ARR numbers.

“If I were in charge of accounting standards, SaaS metrics is the first project I would have FASB do,” Blake said. “It’d be the best thing we could do for tech companies.”

The Path Forward

The accounting profession faces a challenge. The technology works, but the supporting infrastructure hasn’t caught up. Firms still manage by metrics that don’t reflect value creation. Licensing rules block the tech talent firms desperately need. And most organizations aren’t even measuring whether their AI investments pay off.

PwC Australia’s CEO, Kevin Burrowes, put it bluntly: “The future is fewer people doing the same amount or fewer people doing more.” Firms that don’t rebuild their internal systems to match this reality risk falling behind in a rapidly transforming profession.

For the full conversation, including discussions about Representative Ilhan Omar’s accounting disclosure error and more details on all these developments, listen to the complete episode.

AI Can Reconcile a Bank Account End to End Without Instructions

· ·

The accounting profession sees AI companies building tools that weren’t meant for accountants but are increasingly doing accountants’ work. On Episode 482 of The Accounting Podcast, hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary discussed Perplexity and Palantir’s moves into core accounting territory while most firms struggle to see any productivity gains from their AI investments.

Trump Accounts Hit 90% Adoption in First Year

Before getting into AI disruption, the hosts discussed a surprising government success story. Around four million children have been signed up for Trump Accounts in the program’s first year. That’s an 85-90% adoption rate among eligible births since January 2025.

“Think about 401(k) plans,” David pointed out. “It’s been decades and they’re only at 35-40% participation. With college savings plans, it’s been 25 years and 25% participation.” The difference is Trump Accounts combine simplicity (a one-page form filed with your tax return) with immediate value (a $1,000 government contribution, plus additional funds from donors like Michael Dell for low-income families).

Blake ran through the potential impact. If families contribute the maximum $5,000 annually, a child could have $271,000 by age 18 based on historical S&P 500 returns. “That’d be pretty nice,” he said. “Turn 18 and you get $271,000. Maybe that would be a down payment on a house someday.”

Perplexity and Palantir Target Core Accounting Work

The real disruption story started with a simple Instagram ad that caught David’s attention. It read “Find every duplicate entry hiding in your QuickBooks.” The advertiser wasn’t a QuickBooks app developer or accounting software company. It was Perplexity, an AI company better known as a search engine competitor.

Clicking through revealed Perplexity’s new QuickBooks “health check” offering. It includes P&L analysis, expense categorization, AR/AP aging reviews, and reconciliation audits. Perplexity’s homepage also features tax-specific prompts, and they’ve officially launched “Computer for Taxes,” an AI agent that drafts full federal tax returns.

“Perplexity is doing what a whole company just launched to do,” David observed, referring to startups like TaxGPT that built entire businesses around AI tax prep.

Meanwhile, the IRS is testing a $1.8 million pilot with Palantir to build an AI system called SNAP for selecting audit targets. The system will analyze both structured and unstructured data to identify potential fraud and noncompliance.

“People have called Palantir the most dangerous company on earth,” David noted. “So that’s who’s going to pick audits now for the IRS. It’s a little bit scary.” The system could potentially cross-reference tax returns with e-commerce storefronts, social media activity, and data from other government agencies where Palantir operates.

Blake’s Test Whether AI Actually Does the Books

Blake decided to test whether these AI tools could handle real accounting work. He asked Claude Cowork to reconcile a brokerage account in Xero that had no bank feed connection.

Without detailed instructions, Cowork created its own task list, asked clarifying questions, then got to work. It parsed the PDF bank statement, converted it to a CSV formatted for Xero’s import requirements, imported it as a bank feed, matched transactions through the Chrome browser, ran the reconciliation report, and exported it as a PDF.

“End to end, no hand-holding,” Blake said. Even better, he had Cowork save the entire process as a reusable “skill” that improves with feedback. “Now I can upload a PDF and say ‘reconcile this account’ and it will do everything as I like it.”

This raises questions for accounting software companies. “What is the point of Jax in Xero then?” David asked. If external AI agents can perform full reconciliation by interacting through a browser, why build internal AI at all?

Blake says Xero built Jax by copying chatbot functionality from ChatGPT. It’s limited to conversation windows with no ability to handle multi-step workflows. “The AI platform companies have simply raced ahead,” he said.

Firms Are Automating the Wrong Things

Despite all this technological capability, 80% of firms report no measurable AI impact on productivity after three years and billions in spending. The problem, according to a CFO.com opinion piece Blake highlighted, is that firms use the wrong measurement framework.

Most organizations use cost accounting, which rewards local efficiency gains, including hours saved here, a task automated there. But they should use throughput accounting, which asks whether AI actually removes the main bottleneck limiting revenue generation.

“You may have theoretically saved all these hours on tax prep, but if all the returns pile up at review, it’s not getting to the client any faster,” Blake explained. “You’re not delivering any additional value.”

Both hosts agreed the real bottleneck in most accounting workflows isn’t doing the work; it’s getting the information needed to do it. Client document collection causes the biggest delays.

Blake sketched a solution: an AI agent that monitors client folders, compares submissions against a requirements list, and automatically follows up on missing or incomplete documents. “AI won’t be tired on day two or day three,” David said. “It can review these things and send the email again tomorrow. And it’s never going to complain.”

The Three-Person Firm of Tomorrow

The hosts painted a picture of accounting’s near future: firms where a few people do the work of ten, supported by AI agents handling staff-level functions.

“Instead of having 30 clients at your firm, you now can have 90,” David said. “That makes a huge difference.”

Blake envisions a new role structure that includes a CPA or tax expert, a dedicated technologist, and an apprentice, plus “half a dozen AI agents doing the staff functions.” He pointed to conversations with Peter McCarroll of Fuel Accountants, who predicts every firm will need a technologist role.

But Blake offered a reality check. “Cowork crashes. Agents are slow. Building a reliable tech stack in a period of this much change is genuinely hard.” Firms don’t need to adopt every new tool. But they do need to understand their workflows well enough to know exactly where to point AI.

General-purpose AI platforms are building accounting capabilities faster than the profession anticipated. They’re not waiting for permission or partnerships. Listen to the full episode for more insight into figuring out where your real bottlenecks are and pointing AI at them, or watch as others (maybe even your clients) use these tools to work around you.

IPA Survey Data Reveals What Best of the Best Firms Actually Do Differently Than the Rest

· ·

“I can’t wrap my brain around how we’re going to utilize technology and make our work more efficient. How do we bill that if we’re billing by the hour? Are we going to start having reduced fees on their invoices? No. So what does that look like?”

That question from Chelsea Summers, Executive Director of Inside Public Accounting, captures the paradox facing the profession right now. Two-thirds of accounting firm revenue still comes from hourly billing, even as AI promises to slash the time it takes to complete work. Something has to give.

On a recent episode of the Earmark Podcast, host Blake Oliver sat down with Chelsea to dig into firm performance data heading into 2026. Inside Public Accounting has been benchmarking accounting firms since 1987. Its latest survey includes over 600 firms, from Deloitte all the way down to firms around $6.5 million in revenue. The numbers tell a story that’s both reassuring and challenging for firm leaders.

The reassuring part is the playbook for outperformance isn’t complicated. Top firms charge what they’re worth, leverage their staff better, and embrace offshore teams. The challenging part is the profession’s attachment to hourly billing might be the single biggest barrier to capturing value from technology investments.

The Best Firms Don’t Work Harder; They Work Smarter

Every year, IPA identifies its “Best of the Best” firms based on 30 different operational metrics. These firms are profitable, but they also have low turnover, succession plans, marketing strategies, and overall organizational health. “Operationally, you’re a high performing firm that’s going to succeed,” Chelsea explained.

The performance gaps between these top firms and everyone else are striking:

  • Revenue per employee: The best firms generate $272,000 per full-time equivalent versus $220,000 for all firms
  • Leverage ratios: Top performers maintain 17.7 professionals per partner compared to 11.8 for average firms
  • Partner billing rates: Best firms charge $588 per hour while others charge $448

That last number deserves emphasis. Top firms are charging $140 more per partner hour, a 30% premium.

But these high-performers don’t necessarily burn out their people to get these results. “The big myth is that high performing firms push people harder, and that’s why they’re making more money,” Chelsea said. “But in reality, those high performing firms often have healthier capacities because they’re using that leverage and they’re using more specialized roles.”

When IPA compared utilization rates and chargeable hours between Best of the Best firms and everyone else, the numbers were nearly identical. Same hours worked, dramatically different outcomes.

The secret is putting the right people in the right roles. Top firms use more client service staff for production work and keep partners focused on partner-level activities like training, business development, and client relationships. When partners step back into production work and start micromanaging, it hurts morale and growth.

Offshoring Has Reached a Tipping Point

Over half of IPA’s survey participants now use some form of offshoring or outsourcing, and less than 5% plan to decrease it. Nearly everyone else plans to grow or maintain their offshore headcount. This is the new normal.

The performance data backs up the strategy. Firms with offshore teams reported 8.1% organic growth versus 7.5% for firms without them. They also saw a 9% improvement in margins.

“Nine percent is a lot,” Blake noted during the conversation. And he’s right. That kind of margin improvement can transform a firm’s economics.

What’s changed is how firms use these teams. The old model treated offshore staff like a processing center for data entry. Today’s successful firms fully integrate offshore team members. They have branded offices, firm email addresses, training opportunities, and direct client communication.

“Really making that individual feel a part of the team is very helpful in correctly utilizing them and making sure they feel the value of working at the firm,” Chelsea explained.

As technology automates the basic data entry tasks that initially justified offshoring, these team members are moving up to manager-level work, supporting advisory services, and contributing to internal operations. The offshore strategy and the technology strategy work together.

Firms Have More Pricing Power Than They Think

One pattern emerged repeatedly in Chelsea’s conversations with firm leaders: they consistently underestimate what clients will pay. “We have all these D and F clients, we want to cull them so we raise their prices 40%. But they all stay,” she shared.

A 40% price increase, and the clients don’t leave. That should make every managing partner pause and reconsider their pricing strategy.

In today’s inflationary environment, not raising prices can actually send the wrong signal. “When your CPA firm doesn’t increase their prices, then you almost say, are they not very good? Do they not believe in their work?” Chelsea observed.

Blake connected this to a broader pattern he’s seen across firms of all sizes. “We talk a lot when we talk about small firms about how they’re underpricing. It’s the same tendency in the midsize and the larger firms where some firms just don’t charge enough. They have pricing power and they’re not using it.”

The Advisory Pivot Is Slower Than Expected

Despite years of conference presentations about the shift to advisory, most firms still generate less than one-third of their revenue from advisory services. Tax and assurance continue to dominate, accounting for about two-thirds of revenue at the average firm.

“That’s really contrary to all the talk that we’re hearing on advisory,” Chelsea said. “I think it is [the future], but the data just isn’t showing that that is yet the predominant model inside most firms.”

Client accounting services, once positioned as the gateway to advisory, are growing but not explosively. Larger firms have shifted their thinking about CAS. “It seems like a lot of firms, especially the larger firms, have shifted away from feeling like that’s a foot in the door to like, that might be a strategy, but that’s not our only strategy going forward,” Chelsea explained.

For firms succeeding with advisory, a few patterns stand out. They have a dedicated internal champion who isn’t juggling 15 other responsibilities. They invest upfront and accept that returns take time. And they recognize that advisory service lines need different processes than tax and assurance work.

AI Faces Cultural Barriers More Than Technical Ones

When Chelsea asks firms about their return on technology investments, the responses are telling. “They’re like, how do we even do that? What does that look like? What does an ROI even mean?”

That said, firms are finding value in specific areas. Tax research stands out as a clear win. Being able to have AI synthesize complex tax code information saves significant time. Workflow automation, document processing, data extraction, and AI-assisted drafting also deliver results.

But adoption is slower than expected, and the blockers are mostly cultural. Partner skepticism leads the list, followed by change management resistance. “The accounting profession is certainly not known for being early adopters,” Chelsea noted.

There’s also a timing problem. Many firms shelved their AI discussions in December for tax season. When they picked them back up in May, there was different software, different models, different capabilities. “You’ve missed all of that research time and possible adoption time just because you’re too busy doing tax season,” Chelsea explained.

We Can’t Ignore the Billing Model Problem Much Longer

Throughout the conversation, Chelsea kept returning to the incompatibility between hourly billing and efficiency gains from technology.

She actually expected the 2025 data to show movement away from hourly billing. Instead, it went slightly in the other direction. Two-thirds of revenue still comes from billable-hour models, and much of what firms call “fixed fee” pricing is just hourly billing in disguise: time estimates multiplied by rates, presented as a flat fee.

Blake shared his own experience to illustrate the problem. When his CAS firm adopted cloud technology early, efficiency gains were 80%. “We couldn’t bill hourly or we’d lose all our revenue,” he said. “We were forced to switch to fixed fees.”

If AI delivers even half those efficiency gains for tax and audit work, firms clinging to hourly billing will face the same reckoning. Except unlike CAS, which was easier to start fresh with new pricing models, tax and audit are where hourly billing is most entrenched.

For firms evaluating technology investments, Chelsea recommends asking three questions:

  1. Does this reduce manual work in a measurable way?
  2. Does it integrate with existing workflows?
  3. Will it free staff to do higher-value work?

If the answers are yes, the investment probably makes sense, even if you can’t calculate a ROI yet.

The Clock Is Ticking

The IPA data paints a clear picture of where the profession stands today. Top performers are executing on fundamentals. They charge appropriately, leverage staff effectively, and embrace offshore teams. Meanwhile, the broader profession remains tied to hourly billing, is moving slowly toward advisory services, and is largely waiting for clearer signals on AI.

For firm leaders, this creates opportunity and urgency. The playbook for better performance isn’t complicated, but the window to adapt might be narrowing. Firms that figure out how to decouple revenue from hours worked will be positioned to benefit from technology investments. Those that don’t may watch their revenue shrink as efficiency gains eat into billable hours.

“I’m crossing my fingers that 2026 we’re going to see some change,” Chelsea said about the billing model evolution. Given what’s at stake, the entire profession should be crossing their fingers with her.

For a deeper dive into these insights, including specific benchmarks on compensation trends, capacity planning, and technology adoption, listen to the full conversation between Blake and Chelsea on the Earmark Podcast. You can earn free NASBA-approved CPE credit for listening.