ARTICLE | February 20, 2023

Authored by RSM US LLP

The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0), signed Dec. 29, 2022, makes significant changes to retirement legislation with focus on increasing retirement savings for employees and individual retirement account (IRA) owners. One of the major areas of focus in the new law is reforming required minimum distributions (RMDs). RMDs are minimum amounts that a retirement plan account owner or IRA owner must withdraw annually. The original SECURE ACT, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE 1.0), which became law on Dec. 20, 2019, had also made major changes to the RMD rules.

Prior to SECURE 1.0, an RMD was required to begin for the retirement account owner or IRA owner in the year in which the owner turned 70½. However, for the first RMD, the owner was allowed to defer that to no later than April 1 of the following year. That April 1 date is called the “required beginning date.” Delaying your first distribution to the following April 1st does require receiving your first two RMDs in the same tax year. Following the enactment of SECURE 1.0, the age to begin RMDs was increased to 72. For example, if you turn 72 in 2022 or later you are allowed to take your first RMD anytime from January 1 of the year you turn 72 until April 1st of the following year. For all future years, each year’s RMD would be required by December 31 of that year.

In addition to the change in the required beginning date to April 1 of the year following the year in which the retirement plan or IRA owner turns 72, SECURE Act 1.0 changed the payout rules for named beneficiaries. Under SECURE 1.0, named beneficiaries can fall into three categories:

1. Designated beneficiaries (DB)
2. Eligible designated beneficiaries (EDB)
3. Non-designated beneficiaries (NDB)

A DB is any individual, whereas an EDB is a defined subset of certain individuals and trusts and an NDB is a non-individual. An EDB includes: (1) a spouse, (2) minor children (until age 21) of the deceased account owner; (3) individuals not more than 10 years younger by date of birth; and (4) disabled or chronically ill individuals and certain trusts.

SECURE 1.0 changed the rules for a DB who inherits from a retirement or IRA owner dying after Dec. 31, 2019. With limited exceptions, the legislation requires a DB to take complete distributions of the benefits by the end of the year containing the tenth anniversary of the account owner’s death, regardless of whether the account owner died before or after their required beginning date. However, proposed IRS regulations required the DB to continue to take distributions at least as rapidly over the longer of (1) the account owners remaining life expectancy or (2) the beneficiary’s life expectancy, with full distribution by December 31 of the year containing the tenth anniversary of the account owner’s death.

The proposed regulations requirement for “at least as rapidly” distributions caught many taxpayers by surprise with the expectation that no distributions were required prior to the end of the tenth calendar year following the calendar year of the employee’s death. This interpretation by the proposed regulations resulted in some taxpayers not taking an RMD for 2021 and being unsure if they were required to take an RMD in 2022. Notice 2022-53 provided transition relief for taxpayers who inherited an IRA as a DB and did not take a RMD – referred to in the notice as “specified RMDs” for 2021 and 2022 when required. Under the transition relief, a defined contribution plan or IRA that failed to make a specified RMD will not be treated as having failed to satisfy section 401(a)(9) for the 2021 or 2022 calendar years because it did not make the distribution(s). The IRS will not assess the 50% excise tax for failure to make the RMD. Note that no such relief currently exists for 2023 RMDs.

RMDs for EDBs, other than spouses, depend upon whether the owner dies before or after his or her required beginning date. If death occurs before this date, the non-spouse EDB would be paid over the beneficiary’s life expectancy. The non-spouse EDB may elect to receive the funds under the 10-year rule instead of the life expectancy rules. If death occurs after the required beginning date, the non-spouse EDB must begin taking RMDs by December 31 of the year following the year of death. The RMD may be paid over the longer of the (1) account owner’s remaining life expectancy, or (2) the beneficiary’s life expectancy using the Single Life Table. If the EDB is a minor child, these rules apply, however, the full account balance must be distributed by the end of the year in which the child attains age 31.

An NDB is a decedent’s own estate, any charity named as a beneficiary, and any trust that does not qualify as a designated beneficiary. If the beneficiary is an NDB, the provisions of SECURE 1.0 do not apply, the prior RMD rules continue to apply. The RMD rules depend upon whether the owner died before or on or after the required beginning date. If the owner’s death occurs prior to the required beginning date, the distribution must be completed by December 31 of the fifth year after the owner’s death, with no annual distribution requirement. If the owner’s death occurs after the owner’s required beginning date, the NDB calculates the required distributions using the owner’s non-recalculated life expectancy under the Single Life Table using the owner’s age on December 31 in the year of death.

Roth IRAs do not require withdrawals until after the death of the owner. The date of death of the owner becomes the Required Beginning Date. If the beneficiary is a DB, the full distribution is required by December 31st of the year containing the tenth anniversary of the account owner’s death. The DB is not required to take any distributions prior to the tenth year as there is no “at least as rapidly” rule for Roth account balances.

Further changes under SECURE 2.0

The passage of SECURE 2.0 on Dec. 29, 2022. once again made changes to the RMD rules. The RMD age was changed to age 73 for persons attaining age 72 after Dec. 31, 2022, age 73 before Jan. 1, 2033; and age 75 for persons attaining age 74 after Dec. 31, 2032. Age 72 is retained for persons attaining age 72 in 2020 through 2022 and age 70½ for person attaining age 70½ prior to 2020. The change is effective for RMDs after Dec. 31, 2022, for individuals who attain age 72 after that date.

There is an apparent drafting error in the law. Individuals born in 1959 will turn 73 before Jan. 1, 2033, and they would seem to have to begin taking RMDs in 2033. However, those same persons born in 1959, will also attain age 74 after Dec. 31, 2032 – that would suggest that they would not have to begin RMDs until they attain age 75. We can expect either Congress to adopt a technical correction or IRS to provide further guidance as to which age RMDs will begin for these individuals.

No taxpayers will have their first RMD in 2023. Anyone born in 1950 turned 72 in 2022, and such a person had to begin taking RMDs in 2022. However, anyone born in 1951 turns 72 in 2023 and will not have to begin taking RMDs until they attain age 73 in 2024.

SECURE 2.0 also removed the disconnect on the RMD rules between Roth IRAs and qualified plan Roth accounts. Before SECURE 2.0 qualified plan Roth accounts were subject to RMDs during the plan participant’s life. Now as with Roth IRAs, RMDs are not required from such accounts until the plan participant dies. 

Congress has also reduced the penalty for failure to take an RMD from 50% of the amount required to be withdrawn during the year to 25%, and further to 10% if corrected within two years.

Finally, SECURE 2.0 now permits sole designated surviving spouses to elect to treat the deceased spouse’s qualified plan accounts (e.g., a 401(k) plan) as their own for purposes of the RMD. Prior to the change, the rule only applied to IRAs.

Takeaways and reminders.

SECURE 2.0 changes the rules governing how and when certain retirement savers can withdraw money from their retirement accounts and IRAs. RMDs force taxpayers to withdraw from those accounts after a certain age, raising revenues and preventing use of the accounts as tax shelters for wealth accumulation.

Two rules that have not changed but are often overlooked are: (1) if the decedent did not take an RMD in the year of death, the IRA or qualified plan must distribute that year of death RMD to a beneficiary, and (2) that the still-working exception for qualified plans does not apply to IRA owners and to plan participants who own more than 5% of the company.

SECURE 2.0, just like SECURE 1.0, left the age 70½ rule in place for Qualified Charitable Distributions (QCDs). That means taxpayers can still make charitable distributions directly from their IRAs starting at age 70½.

A significant amount of estate planning has been centered on younger beneficiaries being able to receive distributions over their life expectancies (i.e., the so-called stretch IRA). Except for certain disabled beneficiaries, that option is gone, and taxpayers should be revisiting how their tax-deferred plans fit within their overall estate plan.

---

This article was written by Nancy Manary, Bill O’Malley and originally appeared on Feb 20, 2023.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.
https://rsmus.com/insights/services/business-tax/required-minimum-distributions-after-secure-2-0.html

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM(tm) brandmark is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.

ARTICLE | February 13, 2023

Authored by RSM US LLP

Nonprofit leaders are accustomed to doing more with less. They thrive despite limited funding, staffing, supplies and reimbursement rates. Over the past few years, however, nonprofits have had to do more with less of their most critical asset: employees.

The Great Resignation was more than a pandemic-era problem. It was part of a long-term trend in employment rates driven by several factors—although the pandemic and its economic implications certainly intensified it. Nonprofits need to accept that and prepare for this employment struggle to be the new normal—not a short-term blip.

The pandemic-era employment drop and recovery

In the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic, “nonprofits lost a conservatively estimated 1.64 million … jobs, reducing the nonprofit workforce by 13.2% as of May 2020.”[1] In fact, it wasn’t until October 2022 that the number of jobs in the nonprofit sector rebounded to the baseline measurement in 2017 (the most recent nonprofit-specific count from the Bureau of Labor Statistics).[2] The sector’s employment has continued a positive trajectory month over month, much like the American economy.

Despite staff shortages, however, the nonprofits’ work never eased up. So how did nonprofits continue serving their members and constituents? They had to get creative and work smarter.

Looking further back

As catastrophic as the pandemic was—in the early months especially—a look further back clarifies an important trend in American employment. Since unemployment peaked around 10% during the Great Recession of the late 2000s, it has been in a steady decline toward the 3.5% rate at the end of 2022—well below the assumed natural unemployment rate (4.4%).[3] For the two years leading up to the pandemic, and then again starting in 2022, there simply were not enough workers to fill job openings. This worker shortage is noticeably true in the nonprofit sector. As of the end of 2021 (the most recent data currently available), three-quarters of nonprofits indicated that they had job vacancy rates of 10% or more.[4] Factors in American demographics, such as the Baby Boomer generation entering retirement age and the decrease in immigration rates, indicate that this trend of a tight labor market is unlikely to reverse anytime soon.

Getting creative with staffing models

Many nonprofit employees don’t have easily definable job descriptions. And as work boundaries fade, burnout and turnover can increase.

Therefore, many nonprofits have looked outside the traditional workforce for support, engaging with outsourcing firms and independent contractors. Outsourcing the nonprofit’s administrative operations has the double benefit of leveraging efficiencies and the provider’s expertise along with alleviating staff members of the burdens of critical functions like finance, human resources and information technology.

Nonprofits have long been adept at hiring consultants who are experts and leaders in their field, but what about the vast number of individuals active in the gig economy who have talents and skill sets that meet other niche needs? Independent contractors can be a useful, timely supplement to existing staff—not only as subject matter experts but in any number of mundane or routine operations. Examples for nonprofits include staffing for events, graphic and web design, and even monitoring and evaluation techniques. While nonprofit staffing is at critically short levels, outsourcing firms and the gig economy of independent contractors have never been more robust.

Working smarter with automation

In Economics 101, we learned that productivity is a function of labor (human resources) and capital (technological resources). As one decreases, the other will need to increase to maintain a consistent output level. The Great Resignation has shown this principle to be especially pertinent, with modern technological capabilities rising to the challenge of limited human resources. Nonprofit leaders may balk at terms like “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning” (though these tools are more accessible than ever). But effectively leveraging standard, modern technology can drastically reduce the human hours required for almost any task.

One area in which nonprofits commonly have an issue is financial data. Organizations may have different departments looking at the same donor or member revenue in multiple software platforms. Nonprofits can reduce the touch points and manual human engagement by half or more by using techniques like data warehousing, business intelligence tools and system integration.

The other area for significant efficiency opportunities is data monitoring and evaluation. By tracking internal and external data points and responses to activities, nonprofits can easily spot trends and analyze the effectiveness of programs, communications and campaigns to help focus resources on the most successful strategies.

The Great Resignation or the new normal?

Nonprofits need to adapt to current staffing levels with the mindset that this is the new normal. Unemployment is still historically low, and older workers are retiring in massive numbers. Rather than riding out the Great Resignation, nonprofits need to take action now to leverage nontraditional staffing models and optimize technology for their organizations. There are modern alternatives to “doing more with less,” and proactive nonprofit leaders will readily adapt to these strategies.

¹ Nonprofit employment during the COVID-19 Crisis, Center for Civil Society Studies Archive
² Nonprofit Employment Estimated to Have Recovered from COVID Pandemic-Related Losses as of December 2022, George Mason University:
³ U.S. Federal Reserve
⁴ National Council of Nonprofits, The Scope and Impact of Nonprofit Workforce Shortages

---

This article was written by Matt Haggerty and originally appeared on 2023-02-13.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.
https://rsmus.com/insights/industries/nonprofit/nonprofits-after-the-great-resignation.html

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM(tm) brandmark is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.

ARTICLE | February 08, 2023

Authored by RSM US LLP

The past few years of upheaval have underscored a fact that anyone serving on an audit committee well knows—the array of potential risks facing each and every company today is simply too vast and varied for any board to cover in full. How, then, to get enough of a handle on the full spectrum of concerns to ensure that the company is as prepared as it possibly can be—at least for those deemed most crucial?

It’s a question audit committees have been wrestling with for some time, agreed directors participating in a recent roundtable co-sponsored by Corporate Board Member and RSM, several of whom remarked on the boundless nature of the role. “Over the years, we’ve spent more and more time on cyber security, because the threats change, and the amount of industrial equipment that could be attacked goes up every day,” said Neil Novich, a director at W.W. Grainger. “We’re looking at ESG metrics, not just collecting them, but what will it mean if we have to report on them? We spend time on the world—what if the war in Ukraine escalates?—on inflation, on talent. It’s a little bit of everything. Basically, if no one knows where to put it, it ends up in the audit committee.”

By their very nature, risks continually evolve, unfolding in new ways and reordering themselves in importance, added Allison Egbert, partner, audit services, and SEC practice leader, Boston and Northeast region at RSM. “One of the things audit committees struggle with is marrying the reporting risks and the enterprise-level risks,” she noted. “Then at the board level, how much information do you need? Which risks are most important this quarter? How are they evolving year over year?”

Cybersecurity and IT are perennially top-of-mind. However, companies’ ability to attract and retain talent, comply with new reporting requirements, and adapt to operate in inflationary times are now also primary areas of concern, agreed participants, several of whom ex-pressed frustration about the ever-growing list of priorities.

“Board members need to start to be concerned about information overload,” said John Baily, lead director at RLI. “I just read the first draft of one of my companies’ ESG disclosure documents guessing where the SEC will end up in terms of mandatory disclosure, which is a project all by itself. Meanwhile, all boards are focused on IT and how to get and stay informed. I don’t think you can add enough board seats to cover all the topics on which we need expertise.”

Ensuring expertise

Concern over the widening array of risks is shining a spotlight on board composition. However, some directors view CEO experience rather than expertise with a specific risk as what truly best equips boards to navigate emerging risks. “It’s a given that we keep up with things impacting our companies, but there’s a skill to being a board member that doesn’t have to do with being a subject matter expert,” said Greg Serio, a director at Radian Group. “That’s as a skilled scrutinizer for the purpose of promoting and developing shareholder value. This is why companies like C-Suite people on boards because they’ve done that with all the people underneath them. You don’t have to be an expert in a subject if you’ve got the skill of inquiring.”

Boards can, and should, question management closely, agreed Hussain Hasan, principal and national leader of technology risk consulting at RSM, who notes that audit committees must ensure that management is tech savvy enough to see and dissect the value of emerging technologies. “With AI, I would ask. how do you know the AI engine is working and was designed properly? How do you tell your regulators that it’s doing the right thing—because knowing is one thing. and convincing the regulator is another.”

Still, many boards continue to explore building expertise into the current board or finding ways to bring it in from outside. At Radian, for example, the board called on a director from each committee to adopt and watch over a functional area. “It allows each person to take a deeper dive in an individual area and really know what’s going on,” Serio explained. “We also don’t hesitate to hire external experts. We spend time with cyber auditors and have experts in compliance come in every two to three years. So there are ways to get it done.”

Some audit committees chose to adjust their meeting practices to cope with the workload. “We broke our audit committee meetings into two separate one-day sessions in order to cover everything,” noted Kathleen Camilli, a director at Unifirst. “We have very deep dives where management comes in and very deep dives with internal and external experts. Meetings also go on longer and longer.”

Board members also need to walk in prepared, noted Samantha Holroyd, lead director and an audit committee member at Chord Energy. “I’ve been challenging my board members to educate themselves outside of our boardroom,” she said.

“The culture has to be perpetual learning,” agreed Jeff Geygan, a director at Wayside Technology and Rocky Mountain Chocolate and CEO of Global Value Investment. “I tell people when they join the board, ‘This is a roll-up-your-sleeves kind of assignment. You’ll get paid pretty well, but you’ll do some homework at night, for sure. And if you don’t want to take that on, this is probably not the right place for you to sit.”

Shifting to subcommittees

In some cases, recognition of the significance of a particular risk has led audit committees to hive off subcommittees devoted to a single area of concern. For example, healthcare company Ensign’s audit committee formed a separate entity focused on cybersecurity. “A healthcare data leak impacts every single aspect of the business, regulatory, financial, compliance—the criticality was so big that to have it buried by other matters would not be right,” explained Swati Abbott, a director at the company. “So we spun out a committee where we have internal audits for regulatory and compliance, for how we bill patents, how we protect privacy, and then that committee reports up to the board and the audit committee.”

The shift enabled more effective oversight of the broad spectrum of cyber risk. For example, Ensign’s board was able to look more closely at billing risk, at the regulatory environment, and at the role technology and data analytics can play in privacy. “We can have those interactive discussions, and then the audit committee gets the shout-out reporting,” explained Abbott.

For other boards, the solution entailed taking a hard look at scope creep for the audit committee. “As chair, I try to keep our focus on reporting risk,” explained Ellen Masterson, director, and audit committee chair at both Insperity and Westwood Holdings. “What are the systems and processes that build the information, and are they auditable? Are we using internal audit now to build the platform so that when these things do require an auditor’s report, we’ll be there? So when someone says, ‘Oh, the audit committee is responsible for ESG,’ I say, ‘Wait a minute, we’re responsible for the reporting and auditability, but not for the performance.”

While audit committees have historically taken a triage approach to prioritizing competing risks, assessing and agreeing on the levels of various risks has become more complex. “We use dashboards to identify the top 10 financial risk items each year and then set our agenda to make sure we get through them all during the year,” said John Kurtzweil, director and chair of the audit committee at both Axcelis Technologies and SkyWater Technology Foundry, whose audit committee regularly brings in outside expertise both with management present and for private sessions. “Management always gets concerned, but I’ve told my CFOs, ‘Just get over it.’ Because we’re the audit committee; we’re not management. So we’re going to do independent research, and we’re going to ask independent questions.”

Ultimately, it’s that challenge today’s audit committees must navigate: having the willingness to continually dig in, learn and evolve along with the company and its industry enough to be able to ask the right questions about the right risks. “We’re all brought onto boards to scrutinize, ask probing questions, take in the information we are provided—or not provided, as the case may be—and challenge management,” said Serio. “We don’t need to be, and we never will be, the subject matter experts. We’re never going to be able to afford all the subject matter experts we want.

“So we have to focus on: Is management handling this information well? Are they responding to things in the marketplace? Despite everything that’s emerged the past few years and that will emerge as time goes on, the job is still the same job. At the end of the day, the question that will come from a shareholder, from a regulator, from a lawyer, will be: Was the board asking the right questions?”

This article appeared in the Q1 2023 issue of Corporate Board Member. Reprinted with permission.

---

This article was written by Allison Egbert, Hussain Hasan and originally appeared on Feb 08, 2023.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.
https://rsmus.com/insights/services/audit/making-audit-make-sense.html

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM(tm) brandmark is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.

ARTICLE | February 07, 2023

Authored by RSM US LLP

Financial statement preparers should consider the impact of new tax laws and regulations on income tax calculations and disclosures in their 2022 financial statements. While the list below is not intended to be comprehensive, it provides a high-level summary of new laws that affect the 2022 tax year and may impact 2022 financial statements. For further information please consult RSM’s tax alert and RSM ASC 740 tax specialists and/or income tax SMEs. RSM’s full year-end tax alert can be accessed here.

Required capitalization of research and experimental expenditures

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 requires companies to capitalize research and experimental (R&E) expenditures beginning with tax years beginning after December 31, 2021 (i.e., calendar year 2022 tax returns). Domestic and foreign capitalized R&E expenditures are amortized over five and 15 years, respectively. Prior to the TCJA, these expenditures were expensed and deductible in the year incurred.

In accordance with the provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 740, Income Taxes, the new capitalization and amortization requirements will generally result in a temporary difference, with offsetting increases/decreases in current and deferred taxes. There may also be other indirect effects on a company’s income tax provision. For example, companies that have historically incurred taxable losses will need to carefully consider the impact of this capitalization on current taxable income, utilization of net operating losses, and realization of deferred assets. Foreign entities should also consider the impact of the global intangible low-tax income (GILTI) inclusion, and its interaction with the R&E capitalization, on their 2022 income tax returns and financial statements.

Limitations on interest expense under section 163(j)

Under section 163(j), a taxpayer’s interest expense deductions are generally limited to 30% of adjusted taxable income (ATI). The determination of ATI no longer includes an add-back for depreciation, amortization, or depletion in tax reporting years beginning on or after January 1, 2022. Companies need to assess the impact of this change on both their 2022 income tax returns and financial statements.

Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 includes a corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023, that applies to each of the following:

• Corporations (excluding certain entities, as defined) with a three-year average adjusted financial statement net income (as defined) exceeding $1 billion, or
• Domestic (U.S) corporations (excluding certain entities, as defined) that are part of a controlled group with a foreign parent, where the aggregate three-year average adjusted financial statement income (as defined) for such domestic corporations exceeds $100 million, provided that the three year average total adjusted financial statement income of the controlled group exceeds $1 billion.

The IRA also includes a new tax on public companies that repurchase their shares after December 31, 2022. This tax is not an income tax accounted for under ASC 740. Instead, the tax should be accounted for as a cost of the stock repurchase (i.e., within equity).

While the provisions of the IRA are effective for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2023, reporting entities should consider whether disclosures are required within their 2022 year-end financial statements.

---

This article was written by RSM US LLP and originally appeared on Feb 07, 2023.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.
https://rsmus.com/insights/financial-reporting/income-tax-provision-considerations-for-financial-statement-prep.html

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM(tm) brandmark is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.