Posted on

Understanding Horizontal Analysis

3 min read

Understanding Horizontal Analysis, What is Horizontal AnalysisHorizontal Analysis provides businesses a method to examine financial statement entries by looking at the documents’ number for a specific accounting time frame compared to the same length of a historical period for the same accounting line item.

Breaking the Process Down

It’s a way to measure trends and variances by looking at the current year’s values versus the reference year. This helps an analyst figure out if the values increase or decrease. It’s either done on an absolute value or a percentage change basis. The analysis provides a company’s growth and financial position against competitors.

This method is different compared to vertical analysis because vertical analysis looks at a single reporting period and measures the proportional relationship between items, compared to horizontal analysis evaluating multiple periods and multiple ratios for a more comprehensive approach.

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) require uniform and standardized financial statements for adequate financial statement analysis. This entails consistent accounting practices and fundamental principles being employed annually. Comparability constraints mandates that the business’ financial statements are in a form that permits analysts to evaluate them against other competitors in the same field. This is where horizontal analysis comes into play, creating consistency.  

This analysis determines what impacts a company’s growth over time. For cyclical or seasonal companies, it lets analysts get a handle on what’s normal and what’s not. It also permits identification of variances in different product/business segments and how to project a company’s future performance.

Along with the three financial statements (balance sheet, cash flow statement, and income statement) providing working outcomes, it can similarly identify issues and strengths by looking at certain metrics like profit margins or the rate of inventory changing hands.  

If a company reports higher earnings per share due to increases in revenue or lowers its figures of the COGS (cost of goods sold), analysts looking at the interest coverage ratio or cash flow-to-debt ratio, for example, can use horizontal analysis to gauge if a business has enough liquidity for continued operations.

Real World Example of Horizontal Analysis

Let’s say Company X had revenue of $100 million in the previous year and accounts receivable of $200 million during the “base year.” This is compared to revenue of $300 million in the present year and accounts receivable of $600 million. Based on these numbers, the calculations are as follows:

Revenue Comparison

[($300 million – $100 million)/$100 million)] x 100 = 200 percent

Accounts Receivable

[($600 million – $300 million)/$300 million)] x 100 = 100 percent

When it comes to interpreting horizontal analysis, the process needs context to ensure it’s used appropriately. The most prominent consideration is understanding what contributed to the base year’s numbers and the current year’s numbers. Did the company sell off a segment that increased profitability, or did they face massive lawsuits or spend excessive amounts of capex to ensure their viability and competitiveness in the upcoming years?

The calculation is straightforward, but being able to delve into what happened – and why – is the role of the business owner and investor to determine the true health of the business.

Posted on

The IRS Could Owe You Money Thanks to a Pandemic-Era Court Ruling

4 min read

IRS Could Owe You Money, COVID Court RulingHere’s something that flew under the radar for most people: a court decision from late last year could put money back in your pocket if you got hit with IRS penalties during COVID. But you need to act fast! For some taxpayers, the deadline to file a claim is July 10.

What This Case Is Actually About

Remember when COVID was declared a federal disaster? That designation wasn’t just symbolic. It triggered real protections under the tax code, specifically Section 7508A, which lets the IRS push back deadlines and waive penalties when taxpayers are caught up in a disaster. We’re talking about failure-to-file and failure-to-pay penalties here, and those fees can add up to almost 50 percent of what you already owe, which is brutal!

The Kwong v. United States decision came down from the Court of Federal Claims in November 2025, and it changed the game. The court said the nationwide COVID emergency created a mandatory postponement running from Jan. 20, 2020, through July 10, 2023. Everything that came due in that window should have been bumped to July 11, 2023. In other words, a lot of people may have been penalized when they shouldn’t have been.

This Got Real on April 30

The case had been percolating quietly until the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) made some noise about it on April 30. That’s when things got interesting. According to the NTA, tens of millions of taxpayers could be eligible for refunds. Not just on the penalties themselves, but on the interest that piled up on top of those penalties.

The NTA isn’t being shy about this either. The office has pushed hard for the IRS to apply relief broadly instead of making people jump through hoops. They want systemic fixes, not case-by-case battles. And they’ve asked Congress to make sure procedural red tape doesn’t rob people of money they are owed.

There’s another wrinkle worth knowing about. Some refunds issued during 2020 through 2023 may have shortchanged taxpayers on interest because the IRS treated their returns as late. If Kwong holds up, you might be able to claim that missing interest, too.

Expats Had It Especially Rough

If you were living overseas when the pandemic hit, you know the chaos was next level. Borders slammed shut with no warning. People got stranded in countries they were just passing through. Others couldn’t get back to the places they’d been living for years.

Good luck reaching your accountant when consulates are closed, mail isn’t moving, and you’re dealing with a 12-hour time zone difference. Some folks couldn’t access their bank accounts. Others couldn’t get basic documents. And plenty of people were simply stuck, unable to go anywhere, when their filing deadlines rolled around.

Slapping penalties on taxpayers who were dealing with all of that? It misses the point entirely. The disaster relief rules exist for exactly these situations. The NTA has been clear: fair treatment means recognizing what people were actually going through.

You Need to File a Protective Claim

Here’s the practical part. If you want to preserve your right to get this money back, you have to file something called a protective claim. Think of it as a placeholder that keeps your options open while the legal dust settles.

For many people, the deadline is July 10, 2026, though it depends on the tax year involved. Don’t wait until the last minute to figure this out.

The good news is the paperwork isn’t complicated. You can use IRS Form 843 or just file an amended return. You need to list the tax years you’re claiming and note that your refund depends on how the Kwong case plays out. You don’t have to calculate the exact dollar amount right now. The whole point is just to get yourself on record before time runs out.

A Few Limitations to Know About

This relief is specifically about federal income taxes under the Internal Revenue Code. If you’re worried about Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) penalties, that’s a different animal. FBARs fall under the Bank Secrecy Act, so Kwong doesn’t automatically help there. That said, you might still have a reasonable cause argument based on the same COVID disruptions.

State taxes? Every state did its own thing. Most offered some pandemic extensions, but those programs were separate and usually more limited than what we’re talking about here.

Conclusion

If there’s any chance this applies to you, file that protective claim now. Especially if you were overseas during the pandemic years. Once that deadline passes, the door closes for good.

Posted on

Tax Considerations for Data Center Projects in the Age of AI

4 min read

Tax Considerations for Data Center ProjectsArtificial intelligence is driving an unprecedented surge in data center construction. Developers, private equity sponsors and their tax advisors are navigating a complicated web of questions that touch everything from ownership structure to site selection to power sourcing. Get the early decisions wrong and the tax consequences can follow a project for years.

Why REITs Have Become the Structure of Choice

Private equity has increasingly turned to real estate investment trusts when backing data center projects. Structure a REIT correctly, and you sidestep corporate-level taxation entirely. Foreign investors get an even better deal. Sovereign wealth funds and foreign pension funds can participate without any obligation to file U.S. tax returns. Data centers, with their heavy real estate footprint, slot into the REIT framework more naturally than many other asset classes.

That said, the fit is not seamless. Related party rent rules create traps for the unwary. Public pension funds and sovereign wealth funds need to confirm they do not hold stakes in both a data center REIT and its tenant. Another wrinkle involves equipment. Data centers demand significant upfront investment in personal property that may not count as qualifying REIT assets. The tax code requires that 75 percent of a REIT’s total asset value consist of real estate, cash, and government securities at each quarter’s close. Developers often must segregate personal property until the REIT builds up enough good assets to clear that hurdle.

The Power and Water Challenge

Reliable power and water access have become one of the toughest operational problems in the industry. Demand is so intense that many developers are generating their own electricity on-site. The tax treatment of these co-located power facilities depends heavily on the energy source and delivery method. Get it wrong, and the generation asset may not qualify for REIT treatment.

Solar photovoltaic systems sit on relatively solid ground under existing guidance. Nuclear and natural gas, which many see as the next wave of data center power, do not. Current rules leave significant uncertainty around whether these sources can work within a REIT structure.

Legislative and Executive Developments

The IRS priority guidance plan for 2025 and 2026 contains no projects aimed squarely at data centers. Regulation section 1.856-10(g), finalized in 2016, includes an example analyzing customized electrical and telecommunications systems in a data center context, but practitioners continue pushing for clearer rules on alternative energy.

Congress may offer relief on the waterfront. In April 2025, Representative Darin LaHood of Illinois proposed a new section 48F that would provide a 30 percent credit for qualifying water reuse projects, including on-site recycling systems at data centers. With U.S. data centers projected to consume 33 billion gallons of water by 2028, the bill attracted 21 cosponsors and bipartisan support.

The White House has made its priorities clear as well. The Trump administration’s July 2025 AI action plan established a goal of achieving global dominance in artificial intelligence, with infrastructure as one of three pillars. An executive order, issued July 23, 2025, focused specifically on reducing federal regulatory obstacles to data center construction.

Conclusion and OBBBA Incentives Worth Watching

Several provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act benefit data center projects, even though lawmakers did not design them with that sector in mind. The return of 100 percent bonus depreciation under section 168(k) matters enormously for an industry requiring massive capital outlays.

Rural Opportunity Zones sweeten the economics further. Investments in qualified rural opportunity funds now qualify for a 30 percent basis step-up after five years, triple the 10 percent available in standard zones. A special rule targeting improvements to existing structures in rural areas cuts the substantial improvement threshold to 50 percent of adjusted basis, compared to more than 100 percent for non-rural funds.

Developers and investors evaluating new projects will find that entity structure, site selection, and the shifting regulatory environment all interact in ways that directly affect the bottom line. Getting the tax picture right from the start remains essential.

Posted on

Understanding the Customer Acquisition Cost

3 min read

Understanding the Customer Acquisition Cost, What is CACThe Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) measures how much a company spends to obtain new, additional customers. Oftentimes, it’s used with the customer lifetime value (LTV) metric, which also projects the customer’s profitability to calculate the newly acquired customer’s value.

It’s primarily used to measure a business’ sales and marketing departments to figure out their profitability, profit margin and return on investment figures.

How to Calculate

CAC = Sales and Marketing Expense/Number of New Customers

Where: Examples of the expenses include product and service promotion expenditures, special compensation and commissions, regular wage payments, and operating expenses.

The tally of newly acquired customers is simply how many new, unique contracts the business acquired. It’s important to keep the expenses and customer acquisition numbers consistent over the same periods.

Why It’s Important

Business owners and their managers, along with investors, can look at sales and marketing efforts from a return on investment on their expenditures and outcomes. For example, there could be multiple channels that sales and marketing utilize to obtain new customers over a quarter, half-year, or 12-month period (such as email marketing, social media marketing, conferences, etc.). Based upon each channel, the customer acquisition cost is determined by dividing the financial outlay per customer acquired.

From there, each channel can be analyzed to see which one works well and, equally important, which ones don’t work well and either need to be discontinued or modified. Internal stakeholders and external investors (both existing and potential) can look at trends to see if existing management is productive or needs to be replaced with more competent individuals.      

Accounting Considerations

Based on FASB’s Accounting Standards Codification 340-40, businesses are required to document and capitalize incremental costs of securing new customer business if the related expenses are projected to be recouped.

An incremental cost in the scope of obtaining a contract is a cost an entity incurs to obtain a contract that wouldn’t have been incurred if the contract hadn’t been obtained.

While a sales commission (be it fixed or a percentage of a new contract) may be considered an eligible incremental cost to one of its employees, it’s not necessarily always the case. Rather, the true test of whether an incremental cost is capitalizable depends on the subjective interpretation of whether a mandated financial expenditure for an incremental cost is attributed to signing a contract with a new customer.

The following sample situations often require more investigation to determine whether the capitalization of costs is applicable:

  • Equity issuances based upon meeting production and essential function goals
  • Employee compensation according to previous years’ executed contracts
  • Sales commissions allocated over multiple time frames and/or to more than one employee for a single contract.

ASC 340-40 also stipulates the amortization schedule of capitalization costs of obtaining a customer contract on a scheduled timeline that follows the delivery to the customer of the contracted goods or services.

Conclusion

While the customer acquisition cost may be straightforward, when it comes to subjective cases, businesses that have experience with murkier situations are able to make the most of their subjective sales and marketing expenses when navigating the tax and accounting landscape. 

Posted on

Stalemates in Voting Rights and ICE Legislation; Small Business Funding Expanded

4 min read

Stalemates in Voting Rights and ICE Legislation; Small Business Funding ExpandedSafeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (S 1383) – Also known as the SAVE America Act, this bill passed in the House on Feb. 11 but stalled in the Senate due to the Democrat filibuster. The bill would require states to verify documentary proof of citizenship and current residential address when Americans apply for federal voter registration. The easiest documentation would be a birth certificate or passport that confirms their current legal name (most women change their last name after marriage, so they require additional documentation, such as a marriage certificate). However, research from the Bipartisan Policy Center found that nearly 1 in 10 registered voters do not have access to their birth certificate, and 52 percent do not have an unexpired passport with their current legal name. Note that these registration requirements kick in any time current voters update their registration, such as for an address change or to switch political party affiliation. The bill also requires a specific type of photo ID to cast a ballot. A driver’s license is acceptable, but not student IDs or a tribal ID that lacks an expiration date (which tribal IDs do not contain). The president is also insistent that the legislation include unrelated restrictions for transgender Americans. The debate over this bill continues in the Senate.

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026 (HR 7744) – This is the bill that has held up appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2026. The bill was introduced by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) on March 2 and passed in the House on March 5. However, it triggered a partial government shutdown and is under heated debate in the Senate. Republicans insist on passing the complete bill with increased funding for national security and border protection. The legislation also includes provisions prohibiting funds for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Critical Theory programs, as well as abortions and gender-affirming care for ICE detainees. Senate Democrats are seeking to include guardrails that would prohibit ICE agents from wearing masks or entering homes, schools, hospitals, etc., without a judicial warrant. Currently at a stalemate, Republicans will likely try to pass funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), more money for ICE, and components of the Save America Act through a budget reconciliation bill.

Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act (S 3971) – On March 3, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) introduced this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs. These programs, also known as America’s Seed Fund, expired last September. The new bill enables certain agencies to award a portion of their funds to larger projects focused on technology transition, rather than incremental R&D. These agencies, which include the Departments of Defense, Energy and Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, may award up to $30 million to small business projects that prioritize national security, customer demand and undercapitalized technology areas. The bill passed in the Senate on March 3, the House on March 17, and was signed into law by the president on April 13.

Tyler’s Law (S 921) – The purpose of this bill is to issue guidance for hospital emergency departments to implement fentanyl testing as a routine procedure for patients experiencing an overdose. The current standard procedure tests for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, PCP, and natural and semisynthetic opioids, but not synthetic opioids like fentanyl – something many ER practitioners are unaware of. The bill is named for Tyler Shamash, a California teenager who died of an overdose after he passed a drug test in an emergency room that did not include fentanyl. The bipartisan bill was introduced by Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN) on March 10, 2025. It passed in the Senate on March 23, 2026, and is currently awaiting a vote in the House.

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for Temporary Protected Status (HR 1689) – This bill was introduced on Feb. 27, 2025, and passed in the House on April 16, 2026. Amid rampant immigration enforcement, this bill is designed to extend temporary protected status for Haitian migrants through 2029. TPS is intended to provide a safe haven for foreign nationals whose home countries are experiencing temporary unsafe conditions, such as from a natural disaster or civil unrest, for which Haitians continue to qualify. This largely partisan legislation faces an uphill battle in the Senate, as well as a likely veto by the president. In February, the president revoked TPS status for approximately 330,000 Haitians in the United States. However, enforcement of that order is currently halted, and its constitutionality is under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.