Anyone who has moved retirement money out of an old employer’s plan knows how frustrating it can be. Every administrator has their own forms. Timelines are all over the place. Paper checks show up weeks later with vague instructions. The whole thing should have been fixed a long time ago.
The IRS is finally doing something about it. Notice 2026-49 puts out four sample forms and a five-step procedure meant to bring some consistency to direct rollovers. Plans do not have to use them, and there is no safe harbor, but you can see where this is going.
The Problem Worth Solving
When you leave a job, you have to figure out what to do with your 401(k). You can cash it out and take the tax hit. You can leave it sitting there. Or you can roll it into a new employer’s plan or an IRA.
A direct rollover is usually the way to go. The money travels straight from the old plan to the new one without ever hitting your bank account, which keeps things clean and avoids the 60-day deadline you face if you take possession yourself.
The trouble is that every plan does things differently. A 2024 GAO study found that roughly one in three people doing rollovers ended up with a paper check in hand that they were supposed to forward themselves. Checks get lost. They sit on the counter for weeks. And the whole time, that money is not invested anywhere.
How the New System Works
Here is what Treasury is proposing. You fill out Form 1 and give it to the plan or IRA that will be receiving your money. That form lets the receiving plan reach out to your old plan and handle the transfer on your behalf. The two plans swap Forms 2 through 4 to make sure everything is in order. If something goes sideways, the receiving plan has to tell you.
The IRS wants this done electronically whenever possible. When electronic is not an option, the old plan should write a check payable to the receiving plan for your benefit and mail it directly there. No more sending checks to participants and hoping they take it from there.
Tax Rules Stay the Same
None of this changes how rollovers are taxed. Eligible distributions that complete a proper rollover still stay out of income. You still cannot roll over a required minimum distribution. Pre-tax money stays pre-tax. Roth stays Roth. This is about the plumbing, not the tax code.
IRA-to-IRA transfers are not covered here. Those already go through the ACATS electronic system, so Treasury left them alone.
No Safe Harbor Yet
Plans can use these forms, change them, or ignore them completely. Right now, there is no reward for following along.
That could change. Treasury says it is thinking about offering safe harbors down the road. A receiving plan that uses the standard forms might eventually be allowed to assume the rollover is valid unless something looks off. That would give administrators a real incentive to adopt the new process.
Conclusion and What Comes Next
The IRS has hinted at bigger changes. Future guidance might require electronic transfers across the board, kill off the practice of mailing checks to participants, and get rid of some of the procedural friction that slows things down.
For now, the sample forms are sitting in the appendix of Notice 2026-49. They are there if you want them. If you have ever spent weeks tracking down a check that went to the wrong address or trying to explain one plan’s process to another plan’s administrator, you understand what Treasury is trying to fix. They want rollovers to be faster, simpler, and harder to mess up. This is a start.
Rolling Over Your 401(k) Just Got Less Painful – Here’s What the IRS Changed
October 1, 2026 · Blog, Tax and Financial News, Uncategorized
⏱ 4 min read
Anyone who has moved retirement money out of an old employer’s plan knows how frustrating it can be. Every administrator has their own forms. Timelines are all over the place. Paper checks show up weeks later with vague instructions. The whole thing should have been fixed a long time ago.
The IRS is finally doing something about it. Notice 2026-49 puts out four sample forms and a five-step procedure meant to bring some consistency to direct rollovers. Plans do not have to use them, and there is no safe harbor, but you can see where this is going.
The Problem Worth Solving
When you leave a job, you have to figure out what to do with your 401(k). You can cash it out and take the tax hit. You can leave it sitting there. Or you can roll it into a new employer’s plan or an IRA.
A direct rollover is usually the way to go. The money travels straight from the old plan to the new one without ever hitting your bank account, which keeps things clean and avoids the 60-day deadline you face if you take possession yourself.
The trouble is that every plan does things differently. A 2024 GAO study found that roughly one in three people doing rollovers ended up with a paper check in hand that they were supposed to forward themselves. Checks get lost. They sit on the counter for weeks. And the whole time, that money is not invested anywhere.
How the New System Works
Here is what Treasury is proposing. You fill out Form 1 and give it to the plan or IRA that will be receiving your money. That form lets the receiving plan reach out to your old plan and handle the transfer on your behalf. The two plans swap Forms 2 through 4 to make sure everything is in order. If something goes sideways, the receiving plan has to tell you.
The IRS wants this done electronically whenever possible. When electronic is not an option, the old plan should write a check payable to the receiving plan for your benefit and mail it directly there. No more sending checks to participants and hoping they take it from there.
Tax Rules Stay the Same
None of this changes how rollovers are taxed. Eligible distributions that complete a proper rollover still stay out of income. You still cannot roll over a required minimum distribution. Pre-tax money stays pre-tax. Roth stays Roth. This is about the plumbing, not the tax code.
IRA-to-IRA transfers are not covered here. Those already go through the ACATS electronic system, so Treasury left them alone.
No Safe Harbor Yet
Plans can use these forms, change them, or ignore them completely. Right now, there is no reward for following along.
That could change. Treasury says it is thinking about offering safe harbors down the road. A receiving plan that uses the standard forms might eventually be allowed to assume the rollover is valid unless something looks off. That would give administrators a real incentive to adopt the new process.
Conclusion and What Comes Next
The IRS has hinted at bigger changes. Future guidance might require electronic transfers across the board, kill off the practice of mailing checks to participants, and get rid of some of the procedural friction that slows things down.
For now, the sample forms are sitting in the appendix of Notice 2026-49. They are there if you want them. If you have ever spent weeks tracking down a check that went to the wrong address or trying to explain one plan’s process to another plan’s administrator, you understand what Treasury is trying to fix. They want rollovers to be faster, simpler, and harder to mess up. This is a start.
Disclaimer
These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.
With the global bond market size bigger than many of the world’s biggest economies, it’s important for businesses that sell bonds to understand how to report transactions properly. According to the International Capital Market Association (ICMA), the global bond market’s capitalization is more than $128 trillion.
Defining Bonds
Offered by government or corporate entities, bonds are a static commitment issued to investors. Entities earn money from investors to invest in infrastructure or support operations. Investors receive a coupon payment periodically, and the bond is settled at a future date, which is referred to as the maturity date.
When bonds are tendered, they may be done at a discount, at face value, or at a premium. The valuation relies on the gap at issuance between a bond’s coupon rate and the bond’s yield based on prevailing prices. Upon bond issuance, the bond’s face value is recorded under bonds payable, as the issuing entity receives payment for the bond’s prevailing market value. If there’s a positive difference, it’s recorded at a premium. If there’s a negative difference, it’s recorded at a discount.
Bond Issuance and Accounting Considerations
When sold at par value, after the corporation or government entity receives payment from investors, the issuing entity records it as a liability because it’s liable for the investor’s investment. This would be set up as:
Debit
Credit
Cash
$100
Bonds Payable
$100
Bonds Payable Defined
Since the entity owes the investor, bonds payable is recorded on the liability section of a business’ balance sheet. Much of the time, bonds payable are reported as non-current liabilities.
When sold at a discount, a gap exists between a bond’s par value and the monetary investment the issuing entity obtains from the investor; the issuing entity must record the transaction as a discount on bonds payable account. The journal entry is as follows:
Debit
Credit
Cash
$100
Discount on Bonds Payable
$100
$100
Bonds Payable
$100
If bonds are purchased at a premium, which is when investors pay more for a bond with a higher interest rate, providing higher coupon payments, entities must record it as a premium on bonds payable (POBP) account. It often occurs when purchasers agree to lesser earnings due to the bond having a higher rate than prevailing rates. In the case of a bond’s issuance at a premium, it can be recorded as follows:
Debit
Credit
Cash
$100
POBP
$100
Bonds Payable
$100
If there’s a discount on bonds payable, the recurrent record must reflect the interest expense with a debit transaction and the bonds payable entry must see a credit. This accounting method impacts the bond issuer by growing the total interest expense, which the issuer records.
If, however, the issuer receives payment from investors beyond the face value, the interest expense must be credited, and the premium on bonds payable entry should receive a debit.
Conclusion
Whether it’s a business issuing bonds or an investor evaluating a company, understanding how to account for bonds is essential to evaluate a business’ financial health.
How to Account for Bonds
October 1, 2026 · Accounting News, Blog, Uncategorized
⏱ 3 min read
With the global bond market size bigger than many of the world’s biggest economies, it’s important for businesses that sell bonds to understand how to report transactions properly. According to the International Capital Market Association (ICMA), the global bond market’s capitalization is more than $128 trillion.
Defining Bonds
Offered by government or corporate entities, bonds are a static commitment issued to investors. Entities earn money from investors to invest in infrastructure or support operations. Investors receive a coupon payment periodically, and the bond is settled at a future date, which is referred to as the maturity date.
When bonds are tendered, they may be done at a discount, at face value, or at a premium. The valuation relies on the gap at issuance between a bond’s coupon rate and the bond’s yield based on prevailing prices. Upon bond issuance, the bond’s face value is recorded under bonds payable, as the issuing entity receives payment for the bond’s prevailing market value. If there’s a positive difference, it’s recorded at a premium. If there’s a negative difference, it’s recorded at a discount.
Bond Issuance and Accounting Considerations
When sold at par value, after the corporation or government entity receives payment from investors, the issuing entity records it as a liability because it’s liable for the investor’s investment. This would be set up as:
Debit
Credit
Cash
$100
Bonds Payable
$100
Bonds Payable Defined
Since the entity owes the investor, bonds payable is recorded on the liability section of a business’ balance sheet. Much of the time, bonds payable are reported as non-current liabilities.
When sold at a discount, a gap exists between a bond’s par value and the monetary investment the issuing entity obtains from the investor; the issuing entity must record the transaction as a discount on bonds payable account. The journal entry is as follows:
Debit
Credit
Cash
$100
Discount on Bonds Payable
$100
$100
Bonds Payable
$100
If bonds are purchased at a premium, which is when investors pay more for a bond with a higher interest rate, providing higher coupon payments, entities must record it as a premium on bonds payable (POBP) account. It often occurs when purchasers agree to lesser earnings due to the bond having a higher rate than prevailing rates. In the case of a bond’s issuance at a premium, it can be recorded as follows:
Debit
Credit
Cash
$100
POBP
$100
Bonds Payable
$100
If there’s a discount on bonds payable, the recurrent record must reflect the interest expense with a debit transaction and the bonds payable entry must see a credit. This accounting method impacts the bond issuer by growing the total interest expense, which the issuer records.
If, however, the issuer receives payment from investors beyond the face value, the interest expense must be credited, and the premium on bonds payable entry should receive a debit.
Conclusion
Whether it’s a business issuing bonds or an investor evaluating a company, understanding how to account for bonds is essential to evaluate a business’ financial health.
Disclaimer
These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.
According to the Flossbach von Storch Research Institute, 328 of the S&P 500 companies in 2024 had a negative Other Comprehensive Income (OCI) of $4.5 billion. This is attributed to rising interest rates since 2022 had OCI figures of negative $325 billion. Understanding OCI and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) is essential to see what this means and how it’s calculated.
AOCI is where unrealized gains or losses are listed as a special line item found under the Shareholder’s Equity section of a company’s balance sheet. As part of OCI, all unrealized transactions are excluded from net income on an income statement. OCI is the difference between net income and comprehensive income.
Illustrating How Financial Statements Work
If a business has multiple quarters of OCI, say $500,000 in Q1, $750,000 in Q2, and $1.25 million in Q3, the company’s balance sheet would have $2.5 million on its balance sheet under the AOCI line item in the Shareholder’s Equity section at the end of Q3.
Investments that are classified as available for sale, not intended to be held until maturity, and are not a loan or a receivable may be recognized as OCI. One example is a bond portfolio that’s not held to maturity that’s seen an unrealized decrease or increase, and the available-for-sale asset can be included. Pension plans, for example, that see an increase in value, the difference, after recipient distributions are deducted, can similarly be recognized as OCI. Derivatives, classified as cash flow hedges, that experience unrealized gains and losses, also may qualify for OCI classification.
Important Considerations
If a transaction is completed and a gain or loss is realized, the reporting is moved from AOCI to the balance sheet’s Net Income section.
While it’s optional for privately held companies and nonprofits that don’t share it with external parties, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) generated a novel standard in 1997 mandating comprehensive accounting for all publicly traded companies in the United States. This is for all income, including other or special types of income, especially for losses/profits not yet realized.
Reporting AOCI accounts on the balance sheet is important because gains and losses impact the balance sheet overall and the business’ income statistics. It’s also important to note that net income and retained earnings on the income statement are not finalized until transactions are completed and moved to a different section of the balance sheet.
According to FASB’s Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 220, titled “Income Statement — Reporting Comprehensive Income,” the reporting business must document comprehensive income in one or a series of two continuous statements with both other comprehensive income and net income.
Conclusion
Understanding OCI and AOCI work is essential for business owners and external audiences, such as potential investors, when examining a business’ operations.
Understanding Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
September 1, 2026 · Accounting News, Blog, Uncategorized
⏱ 3 min read
According to the Flossbach von Storch Research Institute, 328 of the S&P 500 companies in 2024 had a negative Other Comprehensive Income (OCI) of $4.5 billion. This is attributed to rising interest rates since 2022 had OCI figures of negative $325 billion. Understanding OCI and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) is essential to see what this means and how it’s calculated.
AOCI is where unrealized gains or losses are listed as a special line item found under the Shareholder’s Equity section of a company’s balance sheet. As part of OCI, all unrealized transactions are excluded from net income on an income statement. OCI is the difference between net income and comprehensive income.
Illustrating How Financial Statements Work
If a business has multiple quarters of OCI, say $500,000 in Q1, $750,000 in Q2, and $1.25 million in Q3, the company’s balance sheet would have $2.5 million on its balance sheet under the AOCI line item in the Shareholder’s Equity section at the end of Q3.
Investments that are classified as available for sale, not intended to be held until maturity, and are not a loan or a receivable may be recognized as OCI. One example is a bond portfolio that’s not held to maturity that’s seen an unrealized decrease or increase, and the available-for-sale asset can be included. Pension plans, for example, that see an increase in value, the difference, after recipient distributions are deducted, can similarly be recognized as OCI. Derivatives, classified as cash flow hedges, that experience unrealized gains and losses, also may qualify for OCI classification.
Important Considerations
If a transaction is completed and a gain or loss is realized, the reporting is moved from AOCI to the balance sheet’s Net Income section.
While it’s optional for privately held companies and nonprofits that don’t share it with external parties, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) generated a novel standard in 1997 mandating comprehensive accounting for all publicly traded companies in the United States. This is for all income, including other or special types of income, especially for losses/profits not yet realized.
Reporting AOCI accounts on the balance sheet is important because gains and losses impact the balance sheet overall and the business’ income statistics. It’s also important to note that net income and retained earnings on the income statement are not finalized until transactions are completed and moved to a different section of the balance sheet.
According to FASB’s Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 220, titled “Income Statement — Reporting Comprehensive Income,” the reporting business must document comprehensive income in one or a series of two continuous statements with both other comprehensive income and net income.
Conclusion
Understanding OCI and AOCI work is essential for business owners and external audiences, such as potential investors, when examining a business’ operations.
Disclaimer
These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.
21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (HR 6644) – This bipartisan, White House-endorsed bill addresses housing affordability by placing ownership restrictions on large institutional investors and expanding financing for homebuyers. Introduced by Rep. French Hill (R-AR) on Dec. 11, 2025, it passed in the House on Feb. 9 and in the Senate with changes on March 12. The bill went back and forth between the two chambers until both agreed to the final form on June 23. However, during that time frame, the President withheld his support, and the bill was enacted on July 11 by the 10-day rule (meaning it was neither signed nor vetoed by the President within 10 days of receiving the bill from Congress).
Stop Insider Trading Act (HR 7008) – Known as SITA, this bill would expand the penalties for members of Congress who engage in insider trading, beyond those originally imposed by the STOCK Act of 2012. Under SITA, the penalty would increase from $200 to $2000 or 10 percent of the value of the transaction, whichever is greater, plus any profits. Note that despite violations, the STOCK Act penalties have never been successfully enforced. SITA would also ban legislators, their spouses, and dependents from purchasing individual stocks. It would not require them to discard stocks they currently own; however, in order to sell, they must issue a public notice at least seven days in advance. The bill is not likely to pass in the Senate because it contains provisions related to voting restrictions from the controversial SAVE Act. The bill was introduced by Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI) on Jan. 12, passed in the House on July 22, and awaits consideration in the Senate, which is currently in recess until Sept. 14.
Common Cents Act (S 1525) – This act was introduced by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) on April 30, 2025. The bill instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to stop minting the penny and issue a rule that requires cash transactions to be rounded up or down to the nearest 5 cents. This bill passed in the Senate on Aug. 7 and is now in the House for consideration.
National Plan for Epilepsy Act (S 494) – This bipartisan bill was introduced by Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) on Feb. 10, 2025. Its objective is to require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop and implement a national plan to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure epilepsy. Mandatory activities include coordinating research and services across all federal agencies, soliciting public comments, and establishing an advisory council to report to HHS and Congress every two years with an evaluation of federally funded efforts and recommended actions regarding the nation’s progress on epilepsy. The bill passed in the Senate on Aug. 4 and is now under consideration in the House.
Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran (HConRes 89) – This concurrent resolution would direct the President to remove U.S. troops from engaging in hostilities with Iran sans a declaration of war or Congressional authorization to use military force. Note that the resolution does not prevent the US from defending itself, its military, diplomatic installations, or allies from an imminent attack. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) on April 23. It passed in the House on July 23 and currently resides in the Senate.
Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act (HR 1722) – This bipartisan act would require an annual report issued to Congress by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that details taxpayer-funded projects that are over budget and behind schedule. The bill was introduced on Feb. 27, 2025, by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA). It passed in the House on July 22, 2026, and awaits consideration in the Senate.
Focused on Ending Insider Trading, the Penny, Epilepsy, the War in Iran, and Projects that Waste Taxpayer Money
September 1, 2026 · Blog, Congress at Work, Uncategorized
⏱ 4 min read
21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (HR 6644) – This bipartisan, White House-endorsed bill addresses housing affordability by placing ownership restrictions on large institutional investors and expanding financing for homebuyers. Introduced by Rep. French Hill (R-AR) on Dec. 11, 2025, it passed in the House on Feb. 9 and in the Senate with changes on March 12. The bill went back and forth between the two chambers until both agreed to the final form on June 23. However, during that time frame, the President withheld his support, and the bill was enacted on July 11 by the 10-day rule (meaning it was neither signed nor vetoed by the President within 10 days of receiving the bill from Congress).
Stop Insider Trading Act (HR 7008) – Known as SITA, this bill would expand the penalties for members of Congress who engage in insider trading, beyond those originally imposed by the STOCK Act of 2012. Under SITA, the penalty would increase from $200 to $2000 or 10 percent of the value of the transaction, whichever is greater, plus any profits. Note that despite violations, the STOCK Act penalties have never been successfully enforced. SITA would also ban legislators, their spouses, and dependents from purchasing individual stocks. It would not require them to discard stocks they currently own; however, in order to sell, they must issue a public notice at least seven days in advance. The bill is not likely to pass in the Senate because it contains provisions related to voting restrictions from the controversial SAVE Act. The bill was introduced by Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI) on Jan. 12, passed in the House on July 22, and awaits consideration in the Senate, which is currently in recess until Sept. 14.
Common Cents Act (S 1525) – This act was introduced by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) on April 30, 2025. The bill instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to stop minting the penny and issue a rule that requires cash transactions to be rounded up or down to the nearest 5 cents. This bill passed in the Senate on Aug. 7 and is now in the House for consideration.
National Plan for Epilepsy Act (S 494) – This bipartisan bill was introduced by Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) on Feb. 10, 2025. Its objective is to require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop and implement a national plan to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure epilepsy. Mandatory activities include coordinating research and services across all federal agencies, soliciting public comments, and establishing an advisory council to report to HHS and Congress every two years with an evaluation of federally funded efforts and recommended actions regarding the nation’s progress on epilepsy. The bill passed in the Senate on Aug. 4 and is now under consideration in the House.
Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran (HConRes 89) – This concurrent resolution would direct the President to remove U.S. troops from engaging in hostilities with Iran sans a declaration of war or Congressional authorization to use military force. Note that the resolution does not prevent the US from defending itself, its military, diplomatic installations, or allies from an imminent attack. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) on April 23. It passed in the House on July 23 and currently resides in the Senate.
Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act (HR 1722) – This bipartisan act would require an annual report issued to Congress by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that details taxpayer-funded projects that are over budget and behind schedule. The bill was introduced on Feb. 27, 2025, by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA). It passed in the House on July 22, 2026, and awaits consideration in the Senate.
Disclaimer
These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.
Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI) has evolved from a futuristic concept into a core engine of modern enterprise strategy. Organizations across every major industry are now using AI to automate complex workflows, augment customer service operations, drive predictive decision-making, and unlock greater operational productivity.
Understanding AI Risk
AI is not an easily defined category, as it spans several dimensions that traditional risk frames are not built to accommodate. The Gallagher report, Smart Systems, Blind Spots: Rethinking Insurance for the AI Era, found that the pace of AI adoption surpassed the insurance industry’s capacity to develop responsive products.
What makes AI unique is that risks associated with it emerge from the way systems learn, generate outputs, and make decisions to influence customers, employees, and business outcomes.
Modern businesses face several distinct risk vectors:
Biased or discriminatory decisions Automated recruitment, lending, or credit-scoring models trained on flawed data can produce systematically unfair outcomes. This can result in regulatory penalties, civil rights litigation, and damaged brand reputation.
Hallucinations and inaccurate outputs AI models can confidently generate inaccurate or misleading information. A customer-facing AI assistant that provides incorrect financial, legal or medical guidance could create significant liability exposure.
Intellectual property and copyright disputes Models trained on vast, unvetted datasets reproduce copyrighted material, exposing organizations to costly intellectual property infringement claims.
Data privacy violations Unintentional exposure of proprietary trade secrets or personally identifiable information (PII) during model training can trigger regulatory investigations under frameworks such as the EU AI Act, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), or state-level privacy laws.
Cybersecurity vulnerabilities AI introduces new attack vectors, including prompt injection, data poisoning, and model extraction. Malicious actors can exploit these to compromise business integrity.
Financial losses Autonomous trading agents or algorithmic pricing models operating at high speeds can execute erroneous transactions, leading to immediate financial losses.
Why Traditional Insurance May Not Be Enough
Existing coverage was not designed for current AI issues. Cyber policies were designed around data breaches and network intrusion. This does not cover an AI model making a biased hiring decision or fabricating a financial projection.
Professional indemnity and E&O policies assume a human professional exercised judgment. So, when an algorithm makes a mistake, an insurer may dispute whether the policy was intended to respond. For general liability policies, the focus is on bodily injury and property damage. If an AI program causes bodily injury, insurers can debate whether the policy applies.
Several incidents have caused some insurance companies to exclude AI from their corporate policies. For instance, Google was sued by a Minnesota-based company after its AI Overviews feature named it as a defendant in a lawsuit. This is just one case that highlights the growing concern around “silent insurance” when policies do not explicitly address AI-related risks. However, businesses may assume they are covered when they are not.
The challenge is compounded by the rapidly evolving legal landscape, with governments worldwide introducing new regulations.
The Rise of AI Liability Coverage
In response, a new category is beginning to take shape. This is AI liability insurance. These policies are designed to explicitly address the development, deployment, and use of AI systems. While offerings may vary across providers, AI liability covers incidents such as AI-driven discrimination claims, IP infringement from generative outputs, financial losses from automated decision-making, and regulatory penalties tied to AI non-compliance.
Insurers are approaching underwriting as they did with early cyber policies. They are starting cautiously, requiring detailed disclosure of how AI is used, existing governance controls, and how models are tested and monitored.
Beyond Insurance: Building Comprehensive AI Resilience
Insurance alone cannot eliminate AI risk and should not be a substitute for operational resilience. Organizations building genuine AI resilience are investing in:
Formal AI governance frameworks
Meaningful oversight of consequential decisions
Ongoing model monitoring and auditing
Employee training on responsible AI use
Clearly articulated responsible AI principles
Tested incident response plans specifically for AI-related failures.
A well-governed AI program will also make a business significantly more insurable, as underwriters increasingly price risk based on demonstrated controls.
Conclusion
AI has become one of the greatest sources of competitive advantage as well as a new source of liability. As regulatory scrutiny increases and AI-driven decisions become more consequential, executives must broaden their understanding of enterprise risk. Insurance should not be viewed as a substitute for governance, oversight or responsible AI practices.
For businesses increasingly relying on AI, the question is no longer whether AI creates liability risk, but whether existing insurance is equipped to respond to it.
Insurance for AI Risk: Is It Time to Consider AI Liability Coverage?
September 1, 2026 · Blog, Uncategorized, What's New in Technology
⏱ 4 min read
Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI) has evolved from a futuristic concept into a core engine of modern enterprise strategy. Organizations across every major industry are now using AI to automate complex workflows, augment customer service operations, drive predictive decision-making, and unlock greater operational productivity.
Understanding AI Risk
AI is not an easily defined category, as it spans several dimensions that traditional risk frames are not built to accommodate. The Gallagher report, Smart Systems, Blind Spots: Rethinking Insurance for the AI Era, found that the pace of AI adoption surpassed the insurance industry’s capacity to develop responsive products.
What makes AI unique is that risks associated with it emerge from the way systems learn, generate outputs, and make decisions to influence customers, employees, and business outcomes.
Modern businesses face several distinct risk vectors:
Biased or discriminatory decisions Automated recruitment, lending, or credit-scoring models trained on flawed data can produce systematically unfair outcomes. This can result in regulatory penalties, civil rights litigation, and damaged brand reputation.
Hallucinations and inaccurate outputs AI models can confidently generate inaccurate or misleading information. A customer-facing AI assistant that provides incorrect financial, legal or medical guidance could create significant liability exposure.
Intellectual property and copyright disputes Models trained on vast, unvetted datasets reproduce copyrighted material, exposing organizations to costly intellectual property infringement claims.
Data privacy violations Unintentional exposure of proprietary trade secrets or personally identifiable information (PII) during model training can trigger regulatory investigations under frameworks such as the EU AI Act, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), or state-level privacy laws.
Cybersecurity vulnerabilities AI introduces new attack vectors, including prompt injection, data poisoning, and model extraction. Malicious actors can exploit these to compromise business integrity.
Financial losses Autonomous trading agents or algorithmic pricing models operating at high speeds can execute erroneous transactions, leading to immediate financial losses.
Why Traditional Insurance May Not Be Enough
Existing coverage was not designed for current AI issues. Cyber policies were designed around data breaches and network intrusion. This does not cover an AI model making a biased hiring decision or fabricating a financial projection.
Professional indemnity and E&O policies assume a human professional exercised judgment. So, when an algorithm makes a mistake, an insurer may dispute whether the policy was intended to respond. For general liability policies, the focus is on bodily injury and property damage. If an AI program causes bodily injury, insurers can debate whether the policy applies.
Several incidents have caused some insurance companies to exclude AI from their corporate policies. For instance, Google was sued by a Minnesota-based company after its AI Overviews feature named it as a defendant in a lawsuit. This is just one case that highlights the growing concern around “silent insurance” when policies do not explicitly address AI-related risks. However, businesses may assume they are covered when they are not.
The challenge is compounded by the rapidly evolving legal landscape, with governments worldwide introducing new regulations.
The Rise of AI Liability Coverage
In response, a new category is beginning to take shape. This is AI liability insurance. These policies are designed to explicitly address the development, deployment, and use of AI systems. While offerings may vary across providers, AI liability covers incidents such as AI-driven discrimination claims, IP infringement from generative outputs, financial losses from automated decision-making, and regulatory penalties tied to AI non-compliance.
Insurers are approaching underwriting as they did with early cyber policies. They are starting cautiously, requiring detailed disclosure of how AI is used, existing governance controls, and how models are tested and monitored.
Beyond Insurance: Building Comprehensive AI Resilience
Insurance alone cannot eliminate AI risk and should not be a substitute for operational resilience. Organizations building genuine AI resilience are investing in:
Formal AI governance frameworks
Meaningful oversight of consequential decisions
Ongoing model monitoring and auditing
Employee training on responsible AI use
Clearly articulated responsible AI principles
Tested incident response plans specifically for AI-related failures.
A well-governed AI program will also make a business significantly more insurable, as underwriters increasingly price risk based on demonstrated controls.
Conclusion
AI has become one of the greatest sources of competitive advantage as well as a new source of liability. As regulatory scrutiny increases and AI-driven decisions become more consequential, executives must broaden their understanding of enterprise risk. Insurance should not be viewed as a substitute for governance, oversight or responsible AI practices.
For businesses increasingly relying on AI, the question is no longer whether AI creates liability risk, but whether existing insurance is equipped to respond to it.
Disclaimer
These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.
Anyone who has moved retirement money out of an old employer’s plan knows how frustrating it can be. Every administrator has their own forms. Timelines are all over the place. Paper checks show up weeks later with vague instructions. The whole thing should have been fixed a long time ago.
With the global bond market size bigger than many of the world’s biggest economies, it’s important for businesses that sell bonds to understand how to report transactions properly. According to the International Capital Market Association (ICMA), the global bond market’s capitalization is more than $128 trillion.
According to the Flossbach von Storch Research Institute, 328 of the S&P 500 companies in 2024 had a negative Other Comprehensive Income (OCI) of $4.5 billion. This is attributed to rising interest rates since 2022 had OCI figures of negative $325 billion. Understanding OCI and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) is essential to see what this means and how it’s calculated.
21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (HR 6644) – This bipartisan, White House-endorsed bill addresses housing affordability by placing ownership restrictions on large institutional investors and expanding financing for homebuyers. Introduced by Rep. French Hill (R-AR) on Dec. 11, 2025, it passed in the House on Feb. 9 and in the Senate with changes on March 12. The bill went back and forth between the two chambers until both agreed to the final form on June 23. However, during that time frame, the President withheld his support, and the bill was enacted on July 11 by the 10-day rule (meaning it was neither signed nor vetoed by the President within 10 days of receiving the bill from Congress).
Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI) has evolved from a futuristic concept into a core engine of modern enterprise strategy. Organizations across every major industry are now using AI to automate complex workflows, augment customer service operations, drive predictive decision-making, and unlock greater operational productivity.