The former deputy chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Scott Taub spent more than four years at the SEC, including a year as acting chief accountant. In his tenure there, he played a key role in the Commission's implementation of the accounting reforms under the landmark Sarbanes-Oxley Act. He is an observer on FASB's Emerging Issues Task Force and chair of the accounting and disclosure standing committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions.
CW columnist Scott Taub offers 10 more thoughts on why it’s crucial companies begin to implement the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s revenue recognition standard and what pitfalls await those who choose to delay.
Companies are striving to limit non-GAAP measures, as investors have lately expressed concern over their volume and the number of coinciding adjustments. Columnist Scott Taub helps companies answer the difficult accounting question, “Can we non-GAAP this?”
Companies do a lot of complaining about auditors, but it seems like the auditor is in a no-win situation. In an attempt to get auditor and client on the same page, CW’s Scott Taub covers a few of the most common complaints about auditors, along with a few thoughts on why these things happen. The summary: Your auditors are trying to help, even if it doesn’t always sound that way.
Non-GAAP financial measures—or “pro forma” measures—are an area for which the SEC has had an oscillating view, when it comes to regulation. Over the last 15 years, we have seen the SEC become increasingly strict on how, when, and where non-GAAP financial measures can be used without incurring additional questions from regulators. And while it is certain that we will hear more from the SEC on this matter, the big question remains: Will there be more rules to follow?
You see the sentence all the time: “The provisions of this Codification need not be applied to immaterial items.” Those 12 simple words, while universally understood to mean “don’t include unimportant things in financial statements,” are still relatively unclear. In fact, applying the concept of materiality to accounting has gotten so confusing, the SEC, PCAOB, and FASB are drumming up ways to provide more clarity. CW columnist Scott Taub shares his thoughts inside.
Expect lots of talk about transparency into auditing this fall. The SEC and PCAOB both have proposals to expand the disclosure to investors of how audits work, and what roles audit firms and audit committees play. Substantive changes are almost certainly coming, columnist Scott Taub says, so it’s time to start paying attention. More of his thoughts inside.
One year ago, CW columnist Scott Taub offered 10 initial thoughts on the then-brand new standard for revenue recognition. After working with companies to implement the standardand participating in FASB’s Joint Transaction Resource Group, Taub says he remains optimistic about revenue recognition. Now he has 10 more thoughts on the rule, inside.
Simplicity in accounting is always a great idea, yet complexity always seems to be intruding into reality. This week, Compliance Week columnist Scott Taub tries to deconstruct why complexity endures, and why we may even see it creep into the ostensibly simplified new rule for revenue recognition. “Despite 10 years of focusing on complexity,” he writes, “we’re still dealing with the same underlying causes.”
Here we are with a converged standard for revenue recognition, a profound achievement for financial reporting. Now comes the hard part, Compliance Week columnist Scott Taub writes. Already we see some differences in how to interpret the standard in the United States and overseas, he writes, and we’ll need some deft diplomacy to keep this hard-fought consensus together as implementation proceeds.