Earmark CPE

Earn CPE Anytime, Anywhere

Blake Oliver

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 From IRS staffing cuts and Big Four workforce reductions to outdated metrics and licensing bottlenecks, we’re seeing technology race ahead while the infrastructure lags.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Managing by an Outdated Scorecard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.

The Billable Hour Is Broken and Every Firm Leader Knows It. So Why Won’t Anyone Kill It?

· ·

Richard Lynch can list every reason the billable hour is broken. It undervalues experienced professionals, creates perverse incentives, burns people out, and reduces human beings to time-tracked units. But without a hint of irony, he admits that Sikich, one of the largest CPA firms in the country, still tracks hours “on a religious basis.”

That contradiction tells you everything about where the accounting profession stands right now.

On a recent episode of the Earmark Podcast, host Blake Oliver sat down with Richard, a managing principal at Sikich with over 25 years in public accounting. They had an honest conversation about where things actually stand. Not where the conference keynotes say they stand or where vendor demos suggest they stand, but where they actually stand inside accounting and advisory firms, at the level where someone still has to fill out a timesheet at 9 p.m. on a Tuesday.

The takeaway is that the profession’s transformation is stalling because firms can’t let go of the operational scaffolding they’ve built around the billable hour.

The Super Accountant Vision

Richard has a term for what’s coming: the “super accountant.” It sounds like marketing language, but his definition is specific. A super accountant has AI fluency, strong judgment, and understands compliance without needing to physically perform it. “They’re not a tech person doing accounting work,” Richard explains. “They are a technical person, maybe a CPA, that specifically knows how to leverage technology.”

The structural change everyone talks about is the pyramid becoming a diamond with fewer people at the entry level and more in the middle. But Richard makes an important distinction. The bottom rung is moving up in capability, not disappearing. Future CPAs will “reach a higher level of intellect, capability, and advisory skills at a much earlier age without decreasing the standards.”

Richard points to how this has happened before. Thirty or forty years ago, interns got coffee and made copies. Today, interns do actual client work. “The capability of interns moved up,” he says. The same shift is about to happen again, just bigger.

But the education system isn’t ready. Accounting programs are mostly theoretical. They “lay a foundation,” Richard says, but “certainly don’t give you anything that is pretty or accessible to a client.” Firms will have to bridge the gap with intensive training, it may look like six to eight months where new hires don’t touch billable work, just learn the craft.

The Review Problem

Blake raises the concern many accountants have voiced. If AI does all the basic work, how do people learn to review? The whole system depends on doing the work first, making mistakes, getting feedback, and building judgment.

Richard doesn’t dismiss this. He calls it “a real concern” and says you “can’t underestimate or understate the value of experience.” But then he reframes it with an analogy.

Try explaining to kids today why they need to know how to use an encyclopedia. It seems absurd. The skill became irrelevant because the tool changed. What replaced it was arguably harder: filtering reliable information from unreliable information online.

The same thing is happening with review. “Technology will take care of putting it in the proper box,” Richard says. “Your objective is to have the filter of understanding how to interpret the outcome.” And he goes further: “There may be a benefit to actually not having that anchor of how we used to do business.”

This isn’t theoretical. Tax GPT claims it fully automated 1040 preparation. Basis says it’s done the same for partnership returns. Richard has talked to both vendors. The pace of accuracy improvement is “impressive.” AI is rapidly getting to where it’s “right more than it’s wrong.”

But Richard draws an important distinction. Completing a tax return is just compliance. The real product is what happens after: the advice on paying less tax, structuring a business sale, or planning succession. “When you engage with your clients beyond delivering compliance services,” Richard notes, “fees don’t really come up.”

Why the Billable Hour Won’t Die

“Our people hate entering their time,” Richard says plainly. “There’s no value to the time they spend entering their time and it undervalues us.” Experienced professionals solve complex problems in an hour because they have 30 years of experience. Bill that as one hour, and you’re “undervaluing the 30 years of experience that allowed you to answer that question.”

Richard calls abandoning timesheets “the Mount Everest” of firm transformation. The billable hour is the operating system. Everything runs on it, including utilization, productivity, margin, capacity planning, performance evaluation, even work-life balance monitoring. “You can’t really erase billable hours without erasing all of it,” he says.

Then Richard makes an argument Blake hadn’t considered before. Timesheets might actually help prevent burnout. Sikich monitors employees running over their expected hours and treats it as a capacity problem. Without those guardrails, Richard argues, ambitious people “will work so hard, they’ll burn themselves out really quickly.”

But Blake zeros in on the real issue. AI has destroyed the link between time and value. If AI makes your team twice as fast, the client pays half as much under hourly billing. That math doesn’t work anymore.

So what replaces hours? “We haven’t necessarily identified a better alternative,” Richard admits. Accountants like data and hours provide lots of data. Any replacement becomes more subjective. Client satisfaction? Value delivered? Team engagement? These are harder to measure, and for a profession built on measurement, that’s a problem.

The Basketball Team Problem

Richard draws on his sports background to explain what might work better. Think about the 1990s Chicago Bulls. Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen scored the points. But Dennis Rodman, the defensive specialist who didn’t score much, was essential. His contribution didn’t show up in the headline stats, but the team needed him.

“We’re not even looking at points. We are looking at time on the court.” Blake points out. The profession measures the wrong thing entirely.

But Richard warns that team models only work if everyone performs. If Rodman doesn’t hustle for rebounds while Pippen is scoring, or if Pippen takes a game off while Rodman is sacrificing his body, the whole thing falls apart. “You have to have a culture where the team performs within kind of a standard deviation of each other.”

The deeper problem is cultural. “The connotation of the employee becomes, I am an hours-based person. All I am is hours,” Richard says. When every review, promotion, or conversation starts with “how many hours did you work,” people internalize that their value is their time. Not their judgment or ideas.

And the system treats every hour as equal, which Richard calls “baseline, categorically false.” Some people think faster. That doesn’t make them more valuable, but under an hours system, it makes them look more productive.

The Implementation Gap

Richard says people actually don’t burn out from long hours. “I don’t hear complaints about the hours when it’s engaging work,” he says. He says his team gets excited working a long weekend for a complex client issue. The burnout comes from being stuck at 9 p.m. “dealing with software issues and plugging numbers into spreadsheets.”

AI can eliminate that burnout-causing work. But only if firms actually let it.

“We’re playing with it, but we’re not really implementing it,” Richard says. “We’re purchasing it, but we’re not really relying on it.” Firms pour billions into AI tools, but their training, career paths, and daily operations haven’t changed. The technology is there but the willingness to break old processes isn’t.

“There will be progression and there will be extinction. The question is at what pace,” Richard says, framing the stakes clearly.

Working harder won’t compensate for failure to adopt anymore. Buying AI products doesn’t mean you’re adopting AI. And trying to fit AI into existing processes instead of letting it break them is a choice with consequences.

“If you consistently try to find a place of complacency and comfort, you will not adopt at the pace necessary,” Richard warns.

The Choice Firms Are Making Right Now

What makes this conversation valuable is Richard’s willingness to acknowledge he doesn’t have all the answers. “I still have a lot to learn,” he says.

He can see the billable hour is broken and the pyramid is unsustainable. He can see buying AI tools without changing operations is theater. And Sikich is still tracking hours religiously.

That honesty tells you where the real work is. The super accountant future requires dismantling training models, educational assumptions, and measurement systems that have existed for decades. Not just purchasing new software.

For accounting professionals at every level, including partners making decisions, managers caught between old metrics and new realities, or someone early in their career wondering what’s ahead, the question is whether the firm will let AI change your work.

Richard has a message for other firm leaders: “Don’t let fear rule the day.” The firms that use AI as permission to break outdated processes will thrive. The firms that bolt AI onto unchanged operations will struggle. And that divergence is accelerating.

“I have every desire to be on the side of progression,” Richard says. Which side is your firm choosing?

Listen to the full conversation between Blake and Richard on the Earmark Podcast for deeper discussion on replacement metrics for the billable hour, building the super accountant pipeline, and why letting go of the past might be the profession’s biggest challenge. Then visit earmark.app to earn free NASBA-approved CPE credit.

When Tax Day Was Party Night at the Post Office — And Why AI Is About to Upend Everything Else About Accounting

· ·

Before tax e-filing took over, April 15th was a public spectacle at American post offices. As Blake Oliver and David Leary discussed on their Tax Day episode of The Accounting Podcast, crowds would gather until midnight, with live entertainment, giveaways, and even Playboy offering “stress relief massages” in pink booths. In Philadelphia, there was a “dunk the IRS agent” booth for charity. Radio stations broadcast live. Fast food chains handed out samples. It was America’s weirdest annual party.

Those days are gone — 94% of returns are now filed electronically. But as the hosts explored in this wide-ranging episode, the accounting profession faces disruptions far more profound than the shift from paper to pixels. Within three years, KPMG expects routine audit testing to have “next to no human beings” doing the work. Hobbyist developers are cloning QuickBooks with AI over a weekend. And a third of workers aren’t even checking AI outputs before they submit them.

The IRS Can’t Keep Up — With Rules or Technology

The profession’s struggles with rapid change start at the top. Just five days before the filing deadline, the IRS finalized which jobs qualify for the new no-tax-on-tips deduction. Podcasters made the cut (Oliver and Leary were pleased), along with tattoo artists, ice sculptors, and golf caddies. Accountants didn’t.

“Five days after they finalized these rules to implement them for our clients,” Oliver noted with frustration. The deduction allows eligible workers to exclude up to $25,000 in tips from taxable income, but mandatory service charges don’t count. “This could be the death of the automatic gratuity,” Leary speculated, since those forced tips won’t qualify.

Meanwhile, Americans are spending 11.6 billion hours completing federal compliance forms — mostly tax returns. The value of that labor? Over half a trillion dollars. “That’s material,” Oliver said, noting it represents a significant chunk of the economy devoted to paperwork.

The IRS’s own modernization efforts tell a cautionary tale. The agency had 126 AI projects running as of last summer, up from just 10 in 2022. But after losing 25% of its workforce, 61% of those projects remain unfinished with no plan to close the skills gap. Even more puzzling: the IRS killed its Direct File program despite it costing only $16 million instead of the estimated $61 million and growing 78% year-over-year. “The program was gaining traction and was less expensive than they thought it was going to be, and yet it got canceled anyway,” Oliver observed.

The Big Four’s Radical Restructuring

While the IRS struggles with basic modernization, the Big Four are racing ahead with AI automation that could eliminate thousands of jobs and upend the billable hour model that has defined the profession for decades.

KPMG is moving fastest. They’re piloting AI systems this summer and deploying them next year for routine testing of transactions like payroll, receivables, and cost of goods sold. “Within 2 or 3 years, routine testing could become the first major audit area with effectively no human audit team directly doing the work,” Oliver quoted from KPMG’s audit chief digital officer. “Next to no human beings.”

The other firms aren’t far behind. PwC’s evidence-matching tool now processes 30 client document types, up from six months ago. EY is testing something even more futuristic: AI audit agents that talk directly to client AI agents to gather documents and prepare workpapers. Only Deloitte is publicly pumping the brakes, emphasizing AI should “augment not replace” human auditors.

The numbers are stark: Big Four leaders expect 20-30% of a typical audit to be fully automated by 2029. KPMG UK is already cutting 440 audit jobs. “I don’t see any other outcome than the Big Four just cutting massive numbers of staff jobs,” Oliver said. “If they do this right… that’s 20 to 30% of their billable hours. What are they going to do? Just raise their rates 20 to 30% to compensate?”

Leary had the line of the episode: “Agents are the perfect accounting firm employees. The partners are going to love them.”

The traditional career path is crumbling too. EY’s talent chief told Business Insider that linear career models are becoming “less relevant” as AI values skills over tenure. Oliver speculated firms might shift from hiring masses of new graduates to recruiting experienced professionals from industry, or moving to an apprenticeship model with smaller, more intensively trained classes.

Everyone’s Building Their Own QuickBooks Now

The disruption isn’t just coming from the top. A Reddit user built a full accounting system that runs inside Claude Desktop — no interface, just chat. You tell Claude what happened, and it updates your books. Another developer cloned QuickBooks Desktop using AI, creating a free open-source alternative. The motivation? “I didn’t want to pay for QBO.”

“You as an accounting firm had control over your tech stack and your clients’ tech stack,” Leary explained. “We’re a Xero shop or a QuickBooks shop… Now your clients are just building their own stuff. How do you as a firm manage this now?”

Oliver’s prediction, based on every past tech revolution: “We will end up with more work rather than less, because it will enable our clients to do way more accounting stuff that we’ll have to clean up.”

On the funded startup side, Juno raised $12 million to build AI tax prep that automates 90% of data entry while keeping CPAs in the loop. The key: transparency over autonomy, with source-to-return traceability and visual validation tools. Artifact launched Omni, which Leary called “a Zapier for accounting firms” — it trains AI agents to use your existing tech stack rather than replacing it.

Meanwhile, legacy players are scrambling. Xero published a blog post claiming to be an “AI native operating system.” Leary counted over 20 buzzwords and read them aloud in a devastating list: “AI native, intelligent SaaS, autonomous finance, system of action…” His verdict: “I don’t think this is written for customers. I think this article is written for the street in an attempt to move the stock price.”

The Quality Crisis Nobody’s Talking About

Here’s what should terrify every firm leader: 35% of workers rarely or only occasionally review AI output before submitting it, according to a Resume Now survey. Eighteen percent trust it straight out of the box. Only 40% review AI output every single time. And 15% use AI at work secretly without telling their manager.

“That should scare you as an accounting firm owner,” Leary said.

Oliver argued firms need systems with built-in controls: “If an employee is just generating something with AI… and they didn’t change anything or they didn’t spend any time looking at it, then flag that.”

The stakes are real. The episode covered two fraud cases that show what happens with weak oversight. A New Jersey preparer filed over 100 false returns seeking $170 million in pandemic credits, getting $55 million before being caught. A Pennsylvania preparer started a new $5.5 million fraud scheme while still on supervised release from a previous conviction.

What Separates Winners from Losers

A Hinge Marketing study of 133 firms revealed a massive performance gap emerging. High-growth firms are growing at 33% annually versus 9.6% for average firms. The difference? High-growth firms spend 9% of revenue on marketing (versus 5% for others), and over 90% use AI for content creation, automation, and research.

“If you have a firm that’s growing at 10% and you want it to grow at 30%, spend 10% of your revenue on marketing,” Leary summarized, though Oliver questioned whether it’s causation or correlation: “Is it just that the firms that are growing really fast have money to burn on marketing?”

The Reckoning Is Here

The accounting profession has always adapted slowly. As Leary noted, “Just ask Xero how it takes decades for them to barely make a scratch into the QuickBooks world.” But this time feels different. The changes are coming from every direction at once — Big Four automation, bedroom coders, funded startups, and clients building their own systems.

The irony is thick. Even as AI promises to make location irrelevant, EY is requiring US tax staff to work in-office 12 days a month. The IRS has 126 AI projects but can’t finish them. Firms are adopting AI while a third of workers don’t even review its output.

For firms willing to invest, experiment, and build proper controls, the opportunity is massive. For those hoping to wait it out, the message from this episode is clear: the profession that gathered at post offices until midnight to file paper returns is gone. The question isn’t whether AI will transform accounting — it’s whether the profession can maintain its core promise of trustworthiness while everything else changes around it.

To hear the full discussion — including the story of a disgruntled worker who burned down a $500 million Kimberly-Clark warehouse over pay disputes — listen to the complete episode of The Accounting Podcast.