Earmark CPE

Earn CPE Anytime, Anywhere

irs

From Spreadsheets to Raids: What Happens When We Defund Financial Oversight

· ·

Three years ago, Fox News host Greg Gutfeld warned viewers that 87,000 new IRS agents would create a “police state.” Today, armed ICE agents are going door-to-door in Minneapolis without warrants, investigating financial fraud. In other words, doing the work accountants would normally do with spreadsheets and calculators.

“We’ve replaced armed IRS agents with armed ICE agents doing work for the IRS,” says David Leary, co-host of The Accounting Podcast, still trying to process this turn of events. “I’ve lost sleep over this.”

In their latest episode, David and co-host Blake Oliver connect the dots between the 2022 fight over IRS funding and today’s reality in Minnesota, where billions in fraud have led to what they call a predictable but devastating outcome.

Minnesota’s Billion-Dollar Fraud Problem

The numbers coming out of Minnesota are staggering. On December 19th, prosecutors announced charges against more than 90 people across multiple public assistance programs. The fraud schemes read like a criminal playbook: daycares that collected $110 million through fake claims, the Feeding Our Future scandal that stole nearly $250 million in pandemic food aid, autism services billing for work never performed, using unqualified staff, and housing stabilization fraud.

A federal warrant has flagged 14 Medicare programs with significant fraud problems. The potential losses are in the billions.

“This is fraud that has taken place over many years,” David explains. The investigation has been ongoing for a while, but the political fallout came fast. Trump accused Somali immigrants of widespread fraud. A YouTuber documentary filmmaker went to Minnesota and started visiting these daycares, creating viral content that painted Minnesota as corrupt on all fronts.

In response, Trump sent 2,000 ICE agents to carry out what he called “the largest immigration operation ever.”

But here’s where it gets interesting for accountants. As Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin explained on a radio show, “Right now, on the ground in Minneapolis, Homeland Security investigators are going door to door to these suspected fraud sites. It’s daycare centers or healthcare centers and businesses around them as well.”

No warrants. Just agents showing up at doors.

Compare that to what happened just 30 days earlier at Taco Giro in Tucson. ICE and IRS Criminal Investigation spent years building a case, got proper warrants, then executed 16 search warrants as part of their investigation into immigration and tax violations. That’s how law enforcement used to work: investigation, evidence, warrants, then action.

“Raids have replaced audits and guns have replaced spreadsheets,” David observes.

The Time Machine: Back to 2022

To understand how we got here, Blake and David take listeners back to April 18, 2022. As explained in episode 292 of what was then called the Cloud Accounting Podcast, that’s when the IRS was set to receive $80 billion through the Inflation Reduction Act, including funding for 87,000 new enforcement agents.

The political response was fierce. They replay a segment featuring enrolled agent Adam Markowitz, whose tweet went viral and got him attacked on Fox News. Markowitz wrote, “All of my GOP friends who are worried about the 87,000 IRS enforcement agents coming after the little guy. How about just don’t cheat on tax returns?”

Gutfeld’s response on Fox was brutal, calling Markowitz a “schmuck” and warning viewers, “If you have an IQ higher than an artichoke, you must see that by now, this country is heading towards a police state.”

“The police state still happened,” David points out. “We didn’t avoid it.”

The hosts then shared a detail most people missed. In November 2024, a federal judge blocked the IRS from further record sharing with ICE. But the court documents revealed the IRS had already handed over tens of thousands of taxpayer records to ICE, including home addresses. ICE had requested more than one million records from the IRS.

“This might be the reason Billy Long is out,” David speculates about the departed IRS commissioner nominee. “He might have been pushing back on this.”

Following the Money (Or Not)

The pattern is clear to anyone who understands accounting controls. Over the past decade, Congress repeatedly cut the IRS budget while increasing funding for ICE. They shifted from investigation and fines to enforcement.

“Taxes dictate social policies,” David notes. “Budgets also do that. What you fund and budget is what the government is going to do.”

The result is less nonprofit oversight, slower detection of payroll and benefits fraud, and fewer audits. The absence of all those controls that seemed expensive created billions in fraud.

“We’re in the golden age of fraud,” David warns. “Maybe the new Enron is not one company; it’s just billions and billions and billions of small frauds because we’ve cut all of the controls that might catch it.”

Blake connects this to broader economic concerns. According to a Harris poll, 45% of Americans believe their financial security is worsening. Even 45% of Republicans think the economy is in a recession, despite GDP growth of 4.3% in Q3.

“If you’re the president and you don’t want people paying attention to the economy, what do you do?” Blake asks. “You start foreign conflicts or you create internal conflict.”

The Profession’s Own Control Problems

The accounting profession has its own control problem. The AICPA recently proposed major ethics rule changes for firms backed by private equity, worried that outside money could compromise auditor independence.

Under the new rules, firms can’t escape independence requirements by simply creating separate legal entities. If a CPA firm depends on a non-CPA entity for staff and infrastructure, they’re treated as one unit for independence purposes. PE-backed firms also can’t audit portfolio companies in the same fund.

“As CPAs, we stand for independence, objectivity, ethics,” Blake emphasizes. “Nobody else can do audits.”

But existing controls don’t always have teeth. The hosts discuss WH Smith, the historic British retailer. Their audit firm, PwC, missed profit misstatements that cost shareholders 600 million pounds. Yet the board recommended keeping PwC as their auditor.

“An auditor can cost a company half a billion dollars and they keep their contract,” David says, incredulous. “If anyone else failed that badly, you would fire them.”

The Lesson for Accountants

“Everything’s an accounting story,” David insists, and this one hits close to home.

The Minnesota fraud crisis shows what happens when you defund financial oversight. The 2022 IRS debate shows how fear of government overreach led to the exact outcome critics wanted to avoid. The profession’s own struggles with independence and accountability show these patterns repeat everywhere.

“If you have underfunded controls and you don’t have preventive measures, it always shows up as a very big expense,” David explains. “One time it was Enron. Now the expense is humans getting shot.”

Accountants talking to clients about taxes can do their part by explaining where that money goes and why controls matter. Because the alternative—as Minnesota shows—is much worse.

Blake and David dig deeper into these connections in the full episode, including their take on California’s proposed billionaire tax, why wars boost economies, and what Excel championship winners can teach us about efficiency. Listen to the complete discussion above or wherever you get your podcasts.

The Nine Factors That Determine Whether a Business Is Real or Just a Hobby

· ·

Susan Crile spent 25 years as a professional artist. In all but two of those years, she reported losses on her tax returns. When the IRS came knocking with a deficiency notice that could cost her tens of thousands of dollars, they claimed her art wasn’t a real business—just an expensive hobby.

What happened next became one of the most instructive Tax Court cases for understanding how to defend business deductions against IRS challenges.

In episode 16 of Tax in Action, host Jeremy Wells, EA, CPA, breaks down Susan Crile v. Commissioner (Tax Court Memorandum 2014-202)—a case he considers essential reading for anyone working with self-employed clients. As Jeremy explains, “If you work with small business owners, I strongly recommend reading through this opinion.”

When Your Business Becomes the IRS’s Target

The hobby loss rule creates what Jeremy calls a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation for the IRS. Here’s why it’s so devastating for small business owners.

When the IRS decides your activity is a hobby rather than a business, the tax consequences are brutal. “The income from these kinds of hobby, sport or recreational activities is still included in taxable income,” Jeremy explains. “But the reverse is not true. Those losses are not deductible.”

Think about what this means. If you’re an artist who sells $10,000 worth of paintings but spends $25,000 on studio rent, supplies, and marketing, the IRS still taxes that $10,000 as income. But if they say you’re pursuing a hobby, you can’t deduct any of that $25,000 in expenses.

Since 2018, when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated miscellaneous itemized deductions (made permanent by later legislation), hobby expenses have been completely nondeductible. You pay tax on every dollar coming in, but can’t offset any dollars going out. The only exception is cost of goods sold (COGS), as the cost of raw materials can still reduce gross income.

The burden of proving your activity is a legitimate business falls entirely on you. Courts won’t just take your word for it. As Jeremy notes, “I can say I’m hoping to make a profit someday, but the courts look at all of the objective factors that go into how I’m operating that activity.”

Who’s at Risk (And Who’s Not)

The hobby loss rule applies to nearly every small business structure: individuals filing Schedule C, partnerships, S corporations, estates, and trusts. But C corporations are completely exempt.

Jeremy points to Amazon as a perfect example. “Amazon was a C corporation pretty much from the start,” he explains. The company famously took seven to eight years before turning a profit. “There was a long time there where investors were nervous that Amazon was never going to be profitable.” Yet Amazon never faced hobby loss scrutiny because C corporations don’t have to worry about this rule.

Simply forming an LLC or electing S corporation status won’t protect you. “Just registering an entity such as an LLC or just making a tax election, such as electing to be an S corporation, doesn’t necessarily guarantee that that taxpayer is not going to have to worry about the hobby loss rule,” Jeremy emphasizes.

For partnerships and S corporations, the determination happens at the entity level, not the individual partner or shareholder level. That affects how losses flow through to individual tax returns.

Susan Crile’s David vs. Goliath Battle

Susan Crile was a tenured art professor at a university when she received IRS deficiency notices in 2010. The IRS was challenging tax years 2004, 2005, and 2007 through 2009—five years where her losses ranged from about $37,000 to $63,000 annually.

The IRS made two arguments. First, they claimed her art activity wasn’t engaged in for profit. Second, they argued that even if it was a business, it should be considered part of her work as an art professor, making the expenses unreimbursed employee expenses rather than business deductions.

Crile believed this was a test case. In an interview after the decision, she said she felt the IRS was exploring “the art industry as a whole to see how far it could go in terms of auditing artists.” Whether that’s true or not, her case established important precedents for creative professionals everywhere.

The Nine Factors That Saved Her Business

The Tax Court uses a nine-factor test from Treasury Regulation 1.183-2(b) to determine whether an activity has a profit motive. Jeremy notes that this framework actually came from earlier court cases. The courts created the test, and the Treasury later adopted it into regulations.

Here’s how each factor played out in Crile’s case:

1. The manner in which she carried on the activity

The court found Crile kept “relatively good records” of sales, galleries, and exhibitions. She worked with a bookkeeper for most years in question. But what really impressed the judge were her business decisions, like switching galleries when she realized her current venue no longer attracted buyers interested in her type of art. The judge concluded, “Petitioner’s marketing efforts demonstrate a profit objective.”

2. Her expertise and that of her advisors

The IRS tried arguing that while Crile could create art, she didn’t understand the business of selling it. The court thoroughly rejected this. The judge found she “understood the general factors that affect the pricing of art: a history of sales, gallery representation, solo exhibits, critical reviews, prestigious public accolades, and she worked diligently to achieve these credentials.” The court’s verdict? “She is, without doubt, an expert artist who understands the economics of her business.”

3. Time and effort expended

Crile spent about 30 hours per week on art during teaching periods and worked full-time creating art the rest of the year. But the court looked deeper, distinguishing between tasks necessary for any activity versus those “essential only because she was conducting a business.” Mundane business tasks like marketing, networking with collectors, and arranging shows would be unnecessary for a hobbyist.

4. Expectation that assets may appreciate

The court recognized that art is “a speculative venture where a single event, a solo show, a rave review or a museum acquisition can lead fairly suddenly to an exponential increase in the prices paid for an artist’s work.” Artists create inventory that might sit at low values for years before that breakthrough moment arrives.

5. Success in other activities

Crile had been an artist for over a decade before becoming a professor. Her academic success actually enhanced her standing with art professionals and expanded her clientele. This factor was relatively neutral in the case.

6. History of income or losses

This was Crile’s weakest point: she had only two profitable years in 25. Jeremy acknowledges “the IRS won this point.” However, the court noted that some losses might have resulted from improperly claiming personal expenses as business expenses. The 2008 financial crisis had also devastated the New York art market during several years under review. Most importantly, the court stated that “losses do not negate the petitioner’s actual and honest intent to profit from the sale of her art.”

7. Amount of occasional profits

With just two years of reported profits, this factor “weighed slightly in favor of the IRS.” But the court remained sympathetic, understanding that in the art world, one breakthrough can change everything.

8. Financial status

Crile had a salary from teaching, but she’d been an artist for over a decade before getting that job. She didn’t become an artist to shield other income from taxes. This factor was neutral.

9. Elements of personal pleasure

The court offered this memorable insight: “A level of suffering has never been made a prerequisite to deductibility.” Yes, Crile probably enjoyed creating art. But her extensive research, marketing efforts, and business operations took her activity “well beyond the realm of recreation.”

The Verdict That Protected Creative Professionals

When the court weighed all factors together, “both qualitatively and quantitatively,” the balance tipped in Crile’s favor. She had proven “an actual and honest objective of making a profit.”

The court found that her activity was indeed a business, allowing her to deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses, and any losses were deductible. As Jeremy summarizes, “Her professional conduct, demonstrated expertise, significant time commitment, and reasonable expectation of appreciation outweighed even decades of losses.”

Clearing Up the “Three-of-Five Year” Confusion

Many tax professionals misunderstand the three-of-five year rule. “I hear this misstated a lot as an activity can’t lose money for three or more years before it’s not deductible,” Jeremy says.

However, that’s not what the rule says. If an activity shows profit in any three of five consecutive years (or two of seven for horse-related activities), it creates a presumption of profit motive. This shifts the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS, but it doesn’t guarantee anything.

“Even if the activity does meet that safe harbor presumption, the IRS can still determine that that activity is not engaged in for profit,” Jeremy warns. Conversely, “an activity can not have profits for more than three years and still be an activity engaged in for profit.”

Practical Lessons for Tax Professionals

Jeremy transforms Crile’s victory into actionable strategies for protecting clients:

  • Document everything. “Documentation and record keeping is key,” Jeremy emphasizes. “Part of the reason Crile was successful is because she had a really good documentation system of her income, expenses, and all the work she produced and her efforts to market that work.”
  • Understand your client’s industry. Jeremy notes how “understanding how the art industry works was key to this case.” Crile brought in expert witnesses to educate the court about art market dynamics. When you can explain why a business operates the way it does within its specific market context, losses become understandable business challenges rather than red flags.
  • Focus on profit motive, not profit. “Having a profit motive isn’t the same as regularly making a profit,” Jeremy clarifies. Don’t scramble to show profitability. Focus documentation efforts on proving business intent.
  • Get to know your clients. Jeremy urges practitioners to understand their clients’ business vision, market strategy, and operational challenges. This ensures “when they go through those periods of losses, you’ve got the ability to make a solid case for them that that activity is, in fact, still engaged in for profit.”

The Human Side of Tax Law

Jeremy finds Crile’s case particularly valuable because it shows “how technical rules and factors at play actually work out in a real life scenario.” Reading the court opinion alongside Crile’s post-case interview reveals “the human side of the story.”

The case made national headlines, with coverage suggesting it protected artists’ livelihoods by confirming their work could be businesslike. But as Jeremy notes, each case is different. “It’s entirely up to the taxpayer to conduct an activity in a professional and business-like manner to avoid the hobby loss rule.”

For tax professionals working with struggling entrepreneurs, such as artists, gig workers, or innovative startups, Crile’s case provides a masterclass in building defensible positions. The tax code, despite its complexity, can accommodate the messy reality of business development when practitioners know how to document and present their clients’ genuine business efforts.

Listen to Jeremy’s complete analysis of this landmark case in episode 16 of Tax in Action. If you work with small business owners, he strongly recommends reading the full Crile opinion to ensure your clients never face the devastating financial consequences of having their business reclassified as a hobby.

When Auditors Look Away and AI Gets Scammed, Who’s Actually Protecting Investors?

· ·

In a recent episode of The Accounting Podcast, hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary tackle the mounting pressures facing the accounting profession, from private equity’s growing influence to corporate lobbying’s impact on tax policy. As the longest government shutdown in history finally comes to an end, the hosts examine how financial incentives reshape both public accounting and tax preparation services.

Government Shutdown Finally Ending After 40+ Days

The episode opens with news that the government shutdown—now officially the longest in U.S. history at over 40 days—is coming to an end. The shutdown cost the economy approximately $15 billion per week, with 650,000 federal employees furloughed without pay.

“The shutdown got real this weekend,” David notes, describing how his wife’s flight was repeatedly delayed, forcing her to abandon her travel plans. The ripple effects have been substantial: the Small Business Administration couldn’t process $2.5 billion in loans for 4,800 businesses, and 42 million Americans on SNAP received only half their November benefits.

Democrats in the Senate broke ranks to vote with Republicans to reopen the government, though they failed to secure an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies they were seeking. As Blake observes, “It’s a game of chicken. Who’s going to blink first? And Democrats blinked on this.”

The Death of IRS Direct File and Rise of TurboTax Stores

The swift elimination of the IRS Direct File program reveals how corporate influence shapes tax policy. Despite achieving 98% user satisfaction and processing 300,000 returns in its second year (up from 140,000 in year one), the program was axed shortly after Intuit donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration.

“It really grosses me out,” David says. “Intuit compromised its own values just for the almighty dollar of getting a TurboTax competitor eliminated.” He points out the hypocrisy on both sides. Intuit, one of the first companies to offer same-sex marriage benefits, abandoned its progressive values, while MAGA Republicans embraced a “woke company” once the check cleared.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent dismissed Direct File as underused, claiming “private alternatives are better,” despite it being an unmarked pilot program still expanding its reach. As David notes, even 300,000 electronic returns represents “300,000 paper returns the IRS doesn’t have to touch.”

Meanwhile, Intuit announced plans to open 20 new brick-and-mortar TurboTax stores following an “Apple Store model.” Customers will work on their returns at in-store computers, then seek help from CPAs and EAs when needed, what the hosts imagine as an “EA Bar” instead of Apple’s Genius Bar. Combined with 200 additional TurboTax expert offices, Intuit is positioning itself to dominate every segment of tax preparation.

The First Brands Audit Failure: A $700 Million Warning Sign

The collapse of First Brands under BDO’s watch illustrates the potential consequences when private equity interests intersect with audit responsibilities. BDO signed off on financials showing $5.23 billion in debt in March. Six months later, the company collapsed with $11.63 billion in actual obligations—more than double what was reported.

Bankruptcy lawyers accuse founder Patrick James of inflating invoices by up to 50 times to secure fraudulent financing. One $179 invoice was allegedly inflated to $9,271. Over $700 million allegedly flowed into James’s personal accounts, funding 17 exotic cars, properties in Malibu and the Hamptons, and a $110,000 six-week Southampton hotel stay.

“How could you audit this company and not be aware of this?” Blake asks. “Here’s all this debt. Money came in because of the debt. Where did the cash go?”

The situation is complicated by BDO’s financial relationships. Private equity investors had loaned BDO over $1 billion, creating what the hosts describe as “financial stress” significant enough to force layoffs. These same investors were reportedly shorting First Brands stock.

“The public thinks your job is to detect fraud in the company,” David says, highlighting the expectations gap. “That’s the only thing they expect you to do.”

Blake identifies three weaknesses in traditional audits that enabled this failure: overreliance on management representations, complexity of off-balance-sheet arrangements, and perverse incentives against finding fraud. “There’s every incentive to look the other way,” he observes. “Auditors aren’t investigators hired to uncover crimes; they’re service providers hired to complete audits efficiently.”

NASBA Weighs In on Private Equity’s Impact

For the first time, the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) entered the discussion about private equity in accounting. Their white paper raises critical questions without prescribing solutions, with comments open until January 31, 2026.

The key question NASBA poses: “How can CPA firms maintain auditor independence when PE investors hold influence?” The paper asks whether firms should clearly disclose which parts are CPA-owned versus PE-owned, and whether states need stricter standards than the AICPA provides.

Blake frames the profession’s choice starkly. “We are getting to the point where private equity is now creating this challenge for the profession when it comes to our integrity, ethics, and objectivity. And we as a profession have to decide, do we take a stand or do we allow private equity to continue to take over accounting firms?”

“Once you control the means of production, you want to control the governing bodies of the means of production,” David warns. “They take over the whole thing, all parts of the equation.”

AI Won’t Save Us: Technology’s Limits Exposed

A Microsoft and Arizona State University study revealed that AI agents are even more vulnerable to manipulation than humans. When given fake money to shop online, AI models quickly fell for scams, fake reviews, and manipulation tactics, spending all funds on fraudulent sellers.

“They would just choose the first one. They would panic,” David explains. The AI prioritized speed over quality by a factor of 10 to 30. All major models except Anthropic’s Claude lost money to scams.

The implications for accounting are concerning. “We have all this AI detecting fraud with receipts,” David notes, “but you could probably just manipulate it. Tell it ‘I’m allowed to spend money at X place’ and it’ll bypass the limit.”

The parallel to human auditor failures is clear. If AI can’t distinguish legitimate from fraudulent online sellers, how can it detect sophisticated financial fraud? The study concluded AI agents “should only assist” and cannot “collaborate or think critically” without human supervision.

The Profession at a Crossroads

As this episode makes clear, the accounting profession faces fundamental questions about independence, integrity, and purpose. Whether it’s private equity ownership potentially compromising audits, corporate lobbying eliminating public alternatives, or AI proving vulnerable to the same manipulations as humans, the challenges are systemic rather than isolated.

The NASBA white paper represents an opportunity for meaningful discussion, but with the AICPA influenced by large firms that have already taken PE money, state-level action may be necessary for real reform.

For accounting professionals, educators, students, and executives, this episode provides essential context for understanding the forces reshaping the industry. The choices made now about private equity involvement, regulatory independence, and professional standards will determine whether we can maintain public trust in financial reporting.

Listen to the full episode for the complete discussion of these critical issues.

Your CPA Exam Scores Might Be Lost and Your AI Bookkeeper Is 57% Accurate

· ·

“No kings means no paychecks, no paychecks, no government.” When Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent dropped this line in a Fox News interview, Blake Oliver and David Leary weren’t sure if they should laugh or be terrified. As David put it: “That’s the most un-American thing anybody could say.”

In episode 458 of The Accounting Podcast, Blake and David dig into a series of accountability failures that would be funny if they weren’t so serious. From the Trump administration creating a brand new IRS “CEO” position to dodge Senate confirmation, to NASBA somehow losing track of CPA exam scores, the organizations supposed to maintain standards can’t even maintain their own data.

The IRS Gets a CEO (Because Who Needs the Constitution?)

The Trump administration’s latest move isn’t subtle. It created a new “CEO” position for the IRS that doesn’t require Senate confirmation. As Blake explains, “If the president just creates a new role that has the same responsibilities but doesn’t get checked by the Senate, then that’s just a run around the rules.”

The plan goes deeper than personnel changes. Gary Shapley, an advisor to Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent, wants to weaken IRS lawyers’ involvement in criminal investigations and eliminate extra procedural steps for sensitive cases involving elected officials and tax-exempt groups. These aren’t reforms—they’re removing the safety rails.

“Where’s the AICPA on this?” David asks. The AICPA wrote a letter about the government shutdown’s impact on taxpayers but stayed silent on bypassing Congress to appoint IRS leadership. Blake doesn’t mince words: “They don’t. They are not willing to take a stand on something that matters because they’re afraid of political blowback.”

According to Wall Street Journal reporting that Blake and David discuss, Shapely has already compiled a hit list. The targets? George Soros and affiliated organizations, major Democratic donors, and left-leaning nonprofit groups.

The hosts make an important point that transcends politics. “The Obama administration targeted right wing groups,” Blake notes, agreeing with a viewer comment. “This is why you don’t want to give the government too much power. The other side gets the gun eventually, then points it at the other side.”

When Accounting Organizations Can’t Do Accounting

If you think government accountability is bad, wait until you hear about the profession’s own organizations.

Professor Joseph Ugrin, who creates the CPA Success Index published by Accounting Today, discovered NASBA’s 2024 data is essentially garbage. Between 25% and 40% of candidate scores are simply missing. Plus, Iowa community colleges appear in the data despite state law requiring bachelor’s degrees to sit for the exam.

“NASBA has access to all the transcripts submitted by the candidates,” Blake points out. “So there’s no reason why they couldn’t correctly classify what schools they went to.”

David speculates, “This smells like somebody at NASBA tried to use AI to summarize some stuff and screwed it up.” Whether it’s AI or old-fashioned incompetence, Ugrin can’t publish the Success Index this year because the data is unusable.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Teachers Union hasn’t released required financial audits for over five years, despite paying $80,000 for audit services in 2025 alone. When members finally got federal filings, they showed only 18% of spending goes to representing teachers. The other 82%? Overhead, politics, and “leadership priorities.”

As David asks incredulously: “How did it go past one year?”

The issue isn’t confined to Chicago. Forty-three Arkansas cities can’t get state funds because they can’t find CPAs to do required audits. “The auditors are retiring. They’re not being replaced,” Blake explains. Small-town America is literally running out of accountants.

AI to the Rescue! (Just Kidding, It’s 57% Accurate)

While real problems go unsolved, the profession is being sold AI magic beans.

One marketing CEO’s experience with QuickBooks’ new AI features reads like a horror story. “Although trained on transactions, QuickBooks frequently miscategorized payments based solely on dollar value,” he wrote. If a vendor sent one $1,000 invoice, the AI recorded all future invoices as $1,000. Contractor payments were recorded under “QuickBooks payments” instead of the contractor’s name. The company spent thousands on accountants trying to fix problems that couldn’t be fixed.

“QuickBooks sits at the heart of our business,” the CEO explained. “When AI upgrades destabilize that core, the consequences ripple across the organization.”

The hosts shared another headline that calls AI’s accuracy into question. Microsoft’s AI agent in Excel achieves 57.2% accuracy on spreadsheet benchmarks. As Blake says: “57.2% accuracy is not going to cut it. Not even 98% accuracy is going to cut it.”

Yet companies like Docyt claim AI will let one accountant manage 300 clients. The hosts’ response? “I’ve talked to firm owners that are super efficient,” David says. “Their best bookkeepers maybe handle 45 clients a month.”

Blake’s experience backs this up: “A typical bookkeeper could do 20 to 30 on average. And my all star could do 40 to 60.” The idea of 300 clients per person? “You would have too many questions coming in emails,” Blake explains. “I don’t think there’s an AI tool that can do that.”

Blake’s ideal practice would have ten outsourced controller clients, meeting weekly with each. “Once I got the ten clients, I could probably do it in four hours a day.” That’s realistic. Managing 300 clients with AI? That’s fantasy.

The hosts haven’t seen AI actually eliminating jobs. “I have yet to talk to an accountant that says, oh, we implemented this thing and now we got rid of two of my staff,” David states. Even at their own company, which uses AI extensively: “We’re not getting rid of anybody. We just hired more engineers.”

The $300 Trillion Oops

Just when you thought it couldn’t get wilder, David shares the stablecoin story that should terrify everyone.

Paxos, which provides stablecoin infrastructure for PayPal, accidentally minted $300 trillion in stablecoins. Not million. Not billion. Trillion. For context, the US deficit is $2 trillion.

“You understand how a stablecoin works in theory.” David says. “A dollar goes in, you get a stablecoin worth a dollar back. What if I told you none of that is true?”

The company claimed it was a “technical error that briefly appeared for 20 minutes,” then they “burned” the excess tokens. But as David points out, if companies can just create and destroy them at will, this proves stablecoins aren’t actually backed by dollars.

This matters because Ripple just bought a treasury management firm for $1 billion, putting cryptocurrency at the center of corporate cash management. “Accountants are going to be touching this stuff,” David warns. “It’s going to be here next year.”

Time to Pay Attention

This episode of The Accounting Podcast is a reality check for a profession facing multiple crises simultaneously. The IRS is being restructured to avoid constitutional oversight. Professional organizations can’t maintain basic data integrity. AI is being forced on businesses with disastrous results. And small towns can’t find CPAs to do basic audits.

“We don’t need a king,” David emphasizes about Bessent’s comments. But between government overreach, organizational incompetence, and technological snake oil, the profession is being pulled in all the wrong directions.

The hosts’ frustration is justified. When Blake asks why the AICPA won’t stand up for constitutional principles, when David wonders how organizations go years without audits, when they both laugh at the idea of one person managing 300 clients, they’re asking the questions the profession should be asking itself.

Listen to the full episode to hear Blake and David’s complete breakdown of these interconnected failures. In a profession built on trust and verification, their willingness to be brutally honest is exactly what’s needed.