{{item.title}}
{{item.text}}
{{item.title}}
{{item.text}}
by Ronen Vexler
Tax Reporting and Innovation
In our second thought leadership piece on Connected Tax Compliance, we start exploring the ERP dimension. Perhaps more mysterious than the Fourth Dimension (to tax professionals), understanding the practical and theoretical implications of ERP transformation is proving a real challenge for tax and finance functions alike.
This article seeks to shed some light on these challenges and offer some thoughts on how to move forward with confidence; but first, a bit of scene setting.
I’ll take it as given that tax and finance professionals are in search of something better. Beyond the desire and need to innovate, there appears to be consensus that there are increasing ‘supply side’ (scarce resources) and ‘demand side’ (more to do) pressures on the tax world. We explored some of these themes in previous articles by my colleagues, Warren Dick and Zac Correia.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that an organisation’s transformation agenda should include tax ‘for the sake of it’, but I do think it is now necessary to have an informed view on how to respond to the changing landscape. And while that may sound trite, this informed view is illusive for a few reasons, grossly simplified as follows:
I should add that when I refer to ‘Tax’ I’m making a very broad generalisation. Clearly, there are many different types of taxes and the dynamics at play for each are different. In my experience, our collective understanding of the ERP considerations of indirect taxes is more mature. There are several reasons for this (e.g. maturity of the relevant technology, large volumes of transactional data, need for real/near real time reporting, etc) which are instructive and so will be explored in future articles, along with the specific dynamics for other areas of tax.
Three further pieces of context before we dive in:
I think the human side of change in tax is underestimated. Tax functions will often have different perspectives to IT and Finance on many issues such as risk, materiality, the true benefits of automation and the ‘on the ground’ challenges of dealing with accounting information. This means that the way that IT and Finance will view the tax process and therefore its transformation is quite different to how Tax stakeholders might.
One specific example is the heavy reliance for income tax automation on the Trial Balance. While this might be acceptable for some Finance processes, Tax users will need to access more detailed information and be able to classify it and then flow it back into the Finance process. The ability to accommodate this within the confines (budget, system architectures, timeframes) of an ERP project can be difficult.
Our ability to address each of these issues has evolved exponentially and will be explored in future articles. In the context of understanding how to unlock the opportunity of a transformation, I’d simply note that a Business Implementer role is critical to truly representing, holistically, the needs of the tax users (or Tax Persona) in an ERP project and assisting in navigating the broader complexities of an implementation. Perhaps it's worth considering a few examples that bring this to life:
This is an important area that is worth considering in further detail; more on this in future articles.
Articulating the business case for change
The ability of Tax to articulate a business case for change has historically been limited by sparsity of direct data to evaluate the success of such transformations, and also by a common view of tax as a ‘cost centre’. In building a case for change, headcount reductions are an obvious consideration, but can be difficult to objectively support and will often be inappropriate in the current environment of stretched tax functions.
Accordingly, the levers for change turned to more qualitative measures such as the desire to shift focus to value add activities. These are important and valid reasons for change but are inherently more subjective.
Notwithstanding the above, there are frameworks emerging to better holistically assess a business case, including quantifying benefits traditionally regarded as purely qualitative, supported by data and lived experiences. It is worth noting that Finance transformations are much further along a very similar journey and the lessons learned are incredibly instructive here (yet another reason why close collaboration between the disciplines is essential to successful transformations).
I also think that changes ahead are already impacting business cases.
It is trite to note that tax exists in a dynamic ecosystem. Beyond the normal demands of changing business models and evolving technology, there are the very real pressures of a rapidly changing regulatory landscape, both in terms of rules and expectations.
There are several areas where the risk of not meeting regulatory obligations and expectations can be significantly compromised where they are not adequately considered in an ERP project. Indirect taxes are a prime example of this. These pressures will intensify with changes on the horizon such the OECD Pillar 2 rules, e-invoicing and the move globally towards indirect tax real time reporting. We’re already seeing such considerations influencing the business case for change.
Some people have had enough of talking about data and of blaming data for poor outcomes. It is often cited as a reason for wanting to hold back on automation and process transformation; for example, there is little point in using a different calculation engine if the underlying data inputs are inadequate - we’re solving the wrong problem!
Assuming you’ve read this far, let me risk losing you here by making a few quick points on data:
Like data, the full potential of ‘on system’ technology and the ability to integrate ‘off system’ solutions is not fully appreciated. In the context of an ERP project, any tax assessment should include an evaluation of 'on system' solutions as a part of the end-to-end solution. We will further explore this important piece of the puzzle in our next article.
I think the market is at an inflection point on tax and ERP. Evaluations of the possibilities are becoming more sophisticated and more commensurate to the risks and benefits on offer. Significantly, the opportunity cost of not changing is featuring more prominently in decision making, as a counter balance to the risk of sub-optimal adoption of new technology.
For many tax teams, it is a unique opportunity to address many issues that are difficult to tackle on a piecemeal basis.
It is telling that tax is increasingly on the agenda for ERP transformations. I think the times demand it, and the technology and skills are there in the market to enable organisations to make better informed decisions.
Ronen Vexler
Zac Correia
Daniel Levin
Brady Dever