The integrity of U.S. financial reporting, long considered the “gold standard” globally, faces a familiar challenge as political maneuvers again threaten the independence of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).
At issue is a new income tax disclosure rule, Accounting Standards Update No. 2023-09, designed to provide investors with enhanced transparency. While the standard aims to deliver more valuable financial insights, a proposed budget rider on Capitol Hill seeks to defund the FASB’s oversight body if the rule isn’t withdrawn—a move experts warn could severely compromise the impartial standard-setting process vital to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
“It is kind of unheard of in the tax economy world,” said Zorka Milin, policy director at the FACT Coalition, an organization that advocates for corporate transparency and accountability, referring to the budget threat. “But it’s not unprecedented if we look at it more broadly,” she added, drawing parallels to other policy riders attached to appropriations bills. However, Milin stressed that the direct link to defunding a standard-setter is indeed unique. “This specific right of provision that relates to FASB is… it kind of goes through the SEC appropriations… that’s kind of the way in which it’s connected to the government appropriations process… is unprecedented.”
A spokesperson for the Financial Accounting Foundation, the FASB’s trustee body, declined to comment.
The core of this debate for the accounting profession lies in the preservation of independent standard-setting. Unlike legislative bodies, the FASB operates as a private-sector organization, a structure crucial for ensuring accounting standards are developed based on objective analysis, extensive due process, and the information needs of investors, rather than political agendas or special interests. Ray Pfeiffer, an accounting professor at Simmons University, emphasized this point on October 31, 2025: “The ability to operate with an emphasis on producing standards that improve the efficient allocation of resources in our capital markets, separate from the arbitrary (and often under-informed) wishes of a political party or elected official and their appointees, engenders trust among capital suppliers around the world.” Undermining this independence could erode confidence in U.S. capital markets, which currently represent over 60% of global equity market capitalization.
FASB’s Due Process: Why ASU 2023-09 Was Developed
ASU 2023-09 is not an arbitrary creation but the result of FASB’s rigorous due process. The standard stems from extensive discussions with investors, dating back to 2021, to understand their evolving information needs. Thomas Georges, Policy and Communications Officer for the FACT Coalition, highlighted that the standard was developed to be “maximally useful to investors.” Bob Michaels, Technical Accounting Lead at CrossCountry Consulting, further explained that the FASB’s objective was to “enhance transparency and help investors better assess the tax risks, planning strategies, and future cash flows.” He views the standard as a “clear reflection of the FASB’s overall commitment to just really increase investor transparency,” providing users with “better insight into areas that they were concerned of, so corporate tax strategies.”
From a practical accounting perspective, ASU 2023-09 significantly expands income tax disclosure requirements for calendar year-end filers beginning January 1 next year. Michaels detailed the two main areas: “One, the rate reconciliation, disaggregating that information, disclosure of income taxes paid by jurisdiction, and then along with that, certain qualitative explanations of reconciling items and other kind of tax strategies.” This means companies will need to provide more granular detail on their effective tax rate reconciliation and jurisdictional tax payments.
Challenges: Tension Between Investor Needs and Preparer Burdens
While designed for investor benefit, the new standard introduces tangible challenges for financial statement preparers. Michaels acknowledges the “tension between what the investors are looking for, their demands for clarity, and then the company or preparer concerns about obviously the cost, some of the complexity of the disclosures, and also potential strategic exposure for tax strategies and the like.” Implementing the standard will require “effort and time to go out and track this information, find the information.” Companies will likely need to develop new controls, consider system upgrades, and provide training to ensure the disclosed data is both reliable and accurate. A specific concern for preparers is the lack of a defined materiality threshold, leaving “companies…to interpret what’s material, which then introduces variability and it introduces risk,” potentially leading to inconsistencies across financial statements.
Industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), argue that the standard imposes “substantial competitive harm” and requires the disclosure of “sensitive, non-material information that will not be useful to investors.” They fear reputational damage and exposure of tax planning strategies. However, transparency advocates like Georges counter these concerns, stating that industry arguments regarding data collection burdens or potential misinterpretation “don’t come close to outweighing the benefits for investors that was the prime consideration that FASB had when they were drafting these disclosures and narrowly tailoring these disclosures.” The FASB’s focus remains on delivering decision-useful information to capital providers.
Echoes of Past Accounting Battles
This isn’t the first time the FASB has faced political pressure. Pfeiffer recalls a similar situation involving expensing stock option compensation decades ago, where threats of defunding and legislative override loomed. He sees the current situation as a dangerous parallel that “undermines and circumvents the thoughtful, deliberative, cautious approach” of standard-setting.
The concern extends beyond ASU 2023-09; it questions whether accounting standards will continue to be set by objective analysis or become susceptible to political influence. “Imposing changes outside of the due process and reasoned debate would threaten the credibility of financial reporting standards generally,” Pfeiffer said. “It would also set an unfortunate precedent that financial accounting standards are a mixed result of achieving the objectives of the FASB’s Conceptual Framework and the preferences of the government in power at any moment.”
While the FASB has its own established due process for addressing constituent concerns and potentially revising standards, the current political maneuver bypasses this entirely. Milin remains optimistic that the Senate may not endorse the House’s aggressive stance. “My sense is that there’s not appetite in the Senate to go down this road because it’s quite a traumatic step to kind of end FASB’s independence in this way,” she said.
Despite the political pressure, the accounting community largely believes a reversal of ASU 2023-09 is highly improbable. Given FASB’s thorough outreach and commitment to its due process, Michaels states, “I think now that it is highly, highly unlikely that you’re going to see any kind of modification or even pullback of the standard.” That has “a very minimal chance of happening.”
Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers.
