Key insights:

• • • Real-time tax compliance has restructured the tax function 鈥� Dozens of nations now require structured invoice data in real time, with the EU mandating cross-border digital reporting by 2030. The traditional file-and-wait audit cycle is gone now, replaced by clearance regimes that can freeze multi-million-dollar invoices for nonconforming data.

    • Regulators have pulled ahead of the businesses they oversee 鈥� Tax authorities in mature CTC jurisdictions now arrive at audits with structured transaction data already processed by their own analytics. Government turnaround times that took months now take weeks, forcing multinational tax leaders to compress multi-year roadmaps into 12- and 18-month cycles to keep up.

    • The lessons travel beyond tax 鈥� There are two ways to lose this race: Outrun your own controls or surrender entirely. Both showed up in Las Vegas, and both will show up in every other regulated profession over the next decade.

LAS VEGAS 鈥� The听 sold out. A guest list that included tax directors from Amazon, Walmart, and Procter & Gamble, OpenAI’s tax department, the Big Four, 成人VR视频 and every other major tax software provider in the market spent three days at the Aria with pool deck, casino floor, and restaurants worth lingering over all a few steps away.

The room had every reason to spend its evenings somewhere else other than a sunless conference room talking about tax. Yet almost no one did. They were too busy grappling with an arms race the corporate audit side had begun to suspect it was losing.

And it鈥檚 one they cannot afford to lose.

End of the traditional model

The arms race is real-time tax compliance, and it has dramatically restructured the ground beneath the tax profession in less than a decade. By April, more than 60 jurisdictions have moved or are moving to continuous transaction controls. Italy and Hungary were early; Poland, France, Belgium, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, and Singapore are now operational or imminent, and countries like Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates are on the way. The European Union has locked onto a 2030 deadline for cross-border real-time digital reporting and a 2035 backstop for harmonizing what’s left.

The traditional model 鈥� issue an invoice, file a return weeks later, audit when the auditor gets around to it 鈥� no longer exists in those jurisdictions. Tax authorities now see the transaction as it happens, validates it in structured form, and pre-fills the return on the taxpayer’s behalf.

What this new process has done to the tax function is fundamentally alter its structure in a way leaves practitioners reeling. The job used to be a craft of Excel, judgment, and institutional memory. Now, at the high end, it has become as much a data science problem as an accounting one.

The arms race is real-time tax compliance, and it has dramatically restructured the ground beneath the tax profession in less than a decade.

Attendees at TEI鈥檚 2026 Tax Technology Seminar polled themselves on tooling, and the answers came back as a list of data pipelines that dozens of attendees seemed to favor: Alteryx, Power Platform, Snowflake, Databricks, Microsoft Fabric, & Palantir Foundry. These platforms are running agentic AI systems against historical filings, deploying validation agents to critique their own outputs, and using AI-driven image-to-text solutions to pull structured data out of state tax notices that never arrive in the same format twice. They are data integration pipelines in 15 minutes that would have sat in an IT queue for two months before being answered.

They have little choice as the stakes are far higher and the challenges far more demanding than they used to be. In a clearance regime, an invoice has no legal force until the tax authority returns its identifier. Did you submit the wrong VAT ID, malformed schema, or mismatched master data? Congratulations! Your invoice is rejected. That means the truck doesn’t move, the buyer doesn’t pay an invoice that may be in the millions of dollars and then the penalties stack on top. Italy, for instance, charges a fee of 70% of the disputed VAT.

And then there are the audits.

Outgunned

The audit isn’t an occasional event anymore. In government jurisdictions with mature continuous-transaction-control tax regimes, it is a conversation that started weeks before the auditor walked in, on data their analytics had already processed.

A speaker on a seminar panel led by Deloitte and 成人VR视频 described the dynamic plainly: Tax authorities in those jurisdictions have arrived at audits already knowing more about the transactions than the companies and their in-house audit teams sitting across the table. Not because anyone is hiding anything, but because the data arrived at the tax authority in structured form, in real time, and the authority had run its analytics on it before the meeting was even on the calendar. One panelist said this represents “a shift from us preparing returns to us answering notices on the data that’s been shared.”

What the room kept circling around, however, was that regulators have not just kept pace with their counterparties, they鈥檝e now pulled ahead. Singapore, one panelist noted, is doing more with AI than even major companies. Indeed, government turnaround times that used to take months are now closing in weeks, which is forcing multinational tax leaders to compress their multi-year roadmaps into 12- and 18-month cycles 鈥� not because they want to but because their counterparties already had.

The lesson that corporate tax functions have been forced to absorb is that there are two ways to lose this race, and both were on display at TEI鈥檚 2026 Tax Technology Seminar as cautionary tales.

This asymmetry is structural, and that is what makes it an arms race rather than a transition. There is no version of this dynamic in which the company being audited wins by being more careful, more thorough, or more well-prepared at the end of the quarter. The advantage now accrues to the side with the fastest and cleanest pipelines, that runs the smartest AI, and that understands the way these increasingly complex systems interact. Increasingly, that winning side is the government. And, more alarming, this isn鈥檛 just a problem for this particular industry 鈥� tax just happened to get here first. However, it鈥檚 coming for everyone.

Two ways to lose

The lesson that corporate tax functions have been forced to absorb is that there are two ways to lose this race, and both were on display at TEI鈥檚 2026 Tax Technology Seminar as cautionary tales. The first is to outrun your own controls. AI coding tools that let a tax analyst build a working data integration pipeline in 15 minutes are genuinely valuable; they also let that same analyst deploy something nobody else has reviewed, documented, or knows how to maintain. An OpenAI panelist conceded the point when an audience member asked about the security implications of vibe coding 鈥� clearly, a new capability is also a new problem.

The second way to lose is harder to talk about. One panelist described, to attendees鈥� general dismay, hearing of companies that have given up on compliance entirely 鈥� instead, they pad their numbers with a safety margin and treat the eventual audit as the cheaper of the two costs. The panel recoiled 鈥� one member responded with a flat “Do not do this.” However, the anecdote landed because it isn’t theoretical. When the gap between what regulators can see and what your team can produce becomes wide enough, surrender starts to look rational.

Playing to win

Of course, the attendees at TEI鈥檚 2026 Tax Technology Seminar were not surrendering. If they were, they’d have been at the pool deep into their third cocktail. Or they’d have been on the casino floor or were about to catch an afternoon show. Instead, day after day, the tables filled, the exhibit hall ran hot, and the room was buying, listening, and building.

The game has changed and the stakes have risen 鈥� and the room is dead set on playing to win.

You can find more of听our coverage of Tax Executives Institute events here

• • • The reactive phase is partly a mindset problem 鈥� More than half of tax departments remain stuck in reactive, compliance-focused operations, not only because of frozen budgets, but because of cost-center thinking that shapes cost-center behavior.

    • The value is there, but the measurement isn’t 鈥� Two-thirds of tax professionals say their department鈥檚 technology investment has already enabled more strategic work; yet 22% say they track no performance metrics at all, making that value invisible to the people who control the budget.

    • The rebrand starts internally 鈥� With AI integration timelines compressing to between 1 and 2 years, tax departments that shift their posture now by measuring wins, designating leadership, and building the business case will be better positioned to lead 鈥� and those that don’t will fall further behind, faster.

Apart from the sales department, most other departments within a business are simply viewed as a cost center, and the tax department is no exception. However, like so much of that thinking, this view isn鈥檛 quite accurate because it is the tax department that can uncover the most savings for the business.

You need not look further than recent data that shows while 67% of tax professionals say their department鈥檚 technology investment has already enabled them to do more strategic work, 22% say they track no performance metrics at all, making it difficult to demonstrate the tax department鈥檚 value to the C-Suite.

Given this, it鈥檚 somewhat unsurprising that this cost-center view persists. Worse yet, is often internalized by in-house tax teams themselves. It is one thing to be viewed and treated as a cost center but to act like one is a different matter.

So, what if the bigger problem isn’t how the rest of the business views the tax department but instead how the department views itself?

The , from the 成人VR视频 Institute and Tax Executives Institute, reveals a profession that knows it is capable of far more than it is currently delivering. And yet the same patterns repeat: Budgets stay flat, technology adoption stays slow, and a majority of departments remain stuck in a reactive phase in regard to their technological development that has “remained stubbornly consistent over the past few years,” according to the report.

That’s not just an organizational failure; rather, that’s a mindset problem 鈥� and it starts from within the tax department.

The choices we keep making

The report outlines a Technology Maturity Curve that maps a progression in tech development from chaotic through reactive, proactive, optimized, and predictive stages.

This year, 64% of respondents placed their tax department at the chaotic or reactive end of the spectrum 鈥� up from 57% last year. The reactive phase is the operational definition of a cost center: Heads-down, output-focused, and disconnected from the broader business.

The report reveals something even more important. In those cases in which the budget isn’t the primary constraint, behavior doesn’t change. Almost one-third of respondents (32%) said their strategy for addressing capacity constraints is process optimization 鈥� without new technology or additional hiring. Not because they can’t pursue more, but because that’s the default mode.

One respondent put it plainly: “鈥ur company as a whole is making significant changes, but the tax department is typically an afterthought in those decisions.”

This raises a question that鈥檚 worth asking: Who taught the company to treat tax as an afterthought?

There鈥檚 evidence showing that tax departments are more

The data to challenge the cost-center identity isn’t missing; rather, it’s just not being captured or communicated to the C-Suite.

Two-thirds of respondents (67%) said their tax department鈥檚 technology investment over the past three years has already enabled a shift toward more strategic, proactive work, such as data analytics, forecasting, risk assessment, and decision-making support. Among larger departments, nearly half (48%) are now spending more time on these higher-value activities. This clearly shows that companies that have invested in tax automation are reporting real results, such as improved accuracy, reduced errors, lower costs, and streamlined workflows.

And yet, 22% of tax departments track no technology performance metrics at all, according to the report 鈥� not time savings, not error reduction, not ROI. Nothing.

While 67% of tax professionals say their department鈥檚 technology investment has already enabled them to do more strategic work, 22% say they track no performance metrics at all, making it difficult to demonstrate the tax department鈥檚 value to the C-Suite.

That is cost-center thinking in action 鈥� the belief that it鈥檚 the job of the tax department to do the work, but not to prove its value. However, what isn’t measured can’t be communicated 鈥� and what can’t be communicated can’t change the perception, either internally or externally.

The rebrand starts with how departments see themselves

The most important audience for the tax department’s rebrand isn’t the C-Suite. It’s the department itself.

That means tracking wins and building a formal business case for investment 鈥� grounded in hard ROI and cost savings, which the report identifies as the metrics that are most important to Finance and IT, the two functions that frequently share control of the tax technology budget.

It also means getting serious about leadership. The portion of tax departments with a designated person leading tax technology strategy jumped to 88%, from 51%, in a single year. However, a title only goes so far; and the report is clear 鈥� that role only works when backed by a team that believes it belongs at the decision-making table.

Finally, this rebranding means treating AI as an opportunity, not a threat. The majority of tax professionals have compressed their expectations for AI integration to 1鈥�2 years, from 3鈥�5 years, with 7% saying AI is already central to their workflow. Those departments still locked in cost-center mode are the least prepared for that shift 鈥� because cost centers don’t invest ahead of the curve.

The narrative changes when the mindset changes

No one is going to rebrand the tax department on its own, it has to come from within. Further, it has to be built through deliberate measurement, consistent communication, and a shift in how tax professionals think about our own work.

Your department is not a cost center. The work proves it, and the data backs it up. Now, you should act like you believe it.

You can download a fully copy of the , from the 成人VR视频 Institute and Tax Executives Institute, here

Key takeaways:

• • • The AI tools demonstrated at the 2026 TEI Tax Technology Seminar were genuinely capable 鈥� These included agentic systems running live, nine-year-olds building software by voice, and automation pipelines deployed by major tax departments. The question of Does this work? is effectively settled.

    • That progress shifted the conversation to harder problems 鈥� Some of these problems are hallucinations that fail silently, governance vacuums in which tax rarely owns AI implementation, training rollouts that collapse when people aren’t ready, and rising token costs that could entirely change the economic case for automation.

    • The community’s defining posture wasn’t skepticism or hype 鈥� Instead, it was honest reckoning. Tax leaders believe in the tools and were actively deploying them but also are refused to treat capability as a substitute for the institutional work of process, ownership, and oversight.

“I think you are a very bad man,” said Dorothy.

“Oh, no, my dear; I’m really a very good man, but I’m a very bad Wizard, I must admit.”

鈥� The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, L. Frank Baum

LAS VEGAS 鈥� I arrived in Las Vegas a day early for the , which gave me one free evening before three days of packed sessions. Little question as to what I was going to do: The Wizard of Oz show at the Sphere.

It’s spectacular. The Sphere wraps you in imagery at a scale so vast if feels like you鈥檙e going to fall into it. The tornado shakes you like it鈥檚 going to rip the entire building apart and fling you to Oz right alongside Dorothy. The technology is genuinely, thrillingly good鈥� and that’s what makes the fissures so disorienting when you spot them. A munchkin’s head rendered as a 2D .png with a visible gap where the neck should be. A bad CGI effect. Dorthy flickering at the edges like a bad cutout on a green screen. You don’t catch the tech glitches when the spectacle is unconvincing; rather, you catch them precisely because it’s so good that the gaps have nowhere left to hide.

The next morning, I walked into the TEI Tax Technoloy Seminar and found three days of panels that played out the exact same dynamic 鈥� except the stakes were far more real.

A very good man

TEI organizers opened with the obvious joke: “We’re careful to limit the number of AI sessions,” they noted, before audibly pondering whether it was time to just rename the whole thing. Fair question, given how much has changed over eight annual iterations of this get-together. Indeed, if you’d been dropped into this event from its first meeting nearly a decade ago, you’d think you’d been dropped into Oz.

One presenter described her elementary-school-aged children building video games by dictating instructions to a coding tool, then showing the games running. That alone would have been science fiction five years ago. However, the room was full of it. OpenAI sent four members of its own tax department to demonstrate live automation pipelines. Google and Microsoft walked attendees through building AI agents with nothing more than a mouse and keyboard, making it look so easy my grandmother could have made it work.

One presenter described her elementary-school-aged children building video games by dictating instructions to a coding tool, then showing the games running. That alone would have been science fiction five years ago.

Down the hall, the advanced tax systems that many industry visionaries were dreaming about just two years ago weren’t theoretical anymore 鈥� they were running live. Tax directors from Amazon, Walmart, and a dozen other household names sat alongside Big Four advisors and every major tax software provider through three days of sessions, all of it sold out.

We were definitely not in Kansas anymore. Nor was this the AI of two years ago, the one that could draft a passable email or a poem but couldn鈥檛 so much as parse a spreadsheet. This was something materially different. The tools had crossed a threshold. They worked, and everything the profession had been promising for years was alive and functioning in the room.

And that changed the conversation entirely.

A very bad wizard

When the technology was half-baked, the debate was simple: Is this even possible? Skeptics said no, enthusiasts said give it time, and everyone argued about capability.

The 2026 TEI Tax Technology Seminar was the place where that argument effectively ended 鈥� not because the skeptics lost, but because the question became irrelevant. The tools were plainly, demonstrably good 鈥� indeed, a nine-year-old could use them and was.

The new question that arose was harder and less comfortable to discuss: What can’t AI do?

The room answered honestly and brutally. Someone described uploading a tax schedule to an AI agent and getting numbers that didn’t look right. When challenged, the AI confessed: I couldn’t open your file, so I was just telling you what you wanted to hear.

That anecdote landed differently than it would have two years ago. Back then, it would have been evidence that AI wasn’t ready. At the 2026 TEI Tax Technology Seminar, in a room in which people had just watched live agentic demos and were actively deploying these tools, it was evidence of something more unsettling: AI doesn’t fail loudly anymore. It fails quietly and even politely.

AI performs competence it doesn’t have, at a level of sophistication that鈥檚 just good enough because it is genuinely smarter than it was a few years ago, and it will get away with it unless a human knows enough to push back. Like its counterpart in Oz, this makes an AI tool is a very good man 鈥� genuinely useful, genuinely capable 鈥� and sometimes a very bad wizard. It can’t do the thing you actually need it to do on its own, but it may try to trick you into thinking it did.

AI performs competence it doesn’t have, at a level of sophistication that鈥檚 just good enough because it is genuinely smarter than it was a few years ago, and it will get away with it unless a human knows enough to push back.

That theme echoed across three days of honest, sometimes uncomfortable conversations that went beyond just the technology itself. A transformation director confessed to deploying a training program across dozens of global clients and failing spectacularly. A tool designed to save two hours of work suddenly consumed an entire day because the people who鈥檇 actually had to use it hadn鈥檛 been consulted. Others described Alteryx workflows nobody could explain because the person who built them had left the company without documenting the logic.

And, more concerning, when the room was polled on whether the tax function actually owns AI implementation at their company, two hands went up out of more than 50. Human-in-the-loop was a constant refrain, of course, but attendees confessed to grappling with how to review an ever-increasing volume of work when the errors were increasingly polite, quiet, and technical.

Of course, the professionals at the seminar weren鈥檛 dismissing the technology, which is what made the honesty remarkable. As one senior director said flatly: “You will not survive in this field if you don’t have a change mindset.” They believed in the tools, and they were buying them, deploying them, building around them. They just refused to pretend the tools alone would be enough.

Going home

Overall, the 2026 TEI Tax Technology Seminar was the place that the tax technology community stopped debating whether the Wizard was real and started grappling with the fact that he couldn’t get them home.

That’s not disillusionment; indeed, it’s the opposite. Dorothy doesn’t have her crisis when Oz looks fake, she has it after she meets the Wizard and discovers he’s real but insufficient 鈥� that his balloon won鈥檛 get her home. And unlike Baum’s Wizard, the magic isn’t a fraud 鈥� which is precisely what makes the problem harder. A humbug you can dismiss, but real capability that still can’t get you home? That’s the problem you actually have to solve.

Like Dorothy, today鈥檚 tax leaders will have to click their ruby slippers themselves.

You can find more of our coverage of Tax Executives Institute events here

Key highlights:

• • • Technology satisfaction is in freefall and needs human-side investments 鈥� Satisfaction with tax technology dropped sharply to just 34%, from 56%, in a single year, even as many tax departments continued investing in tools.

    • Training cutbacks are accelerating, as the AI era deepens 鈥� Only 50% of tax departments provided technology training in 2025, down from 59% the prior year.

    • Hiring changes reveal a false choice between tax expertise and tech fluency 鈥� After years of prioritizing tech and IT hires (which were 57% of new roles in 2024), tax departments sharply reversed course, with 62% of new hires in 2025 emphasizing tax expertise over technology skills.

After years of investing in tax technology, corporate tax departments have yet to see peak efficiency because of underdevelopment in workforce training and a growing mismatch between what advanced AI tools can do and what employees can handle. In fact, the , from the 成人VR视频 Institute and Tax Executives Institute, reveals that satisfaction with tax technology has plummeted to just 34%, from 56%, in a single year.

That leaves many tax departments struggle with a widening frustration gap between what they want to achieve and what their current tools will allow. The key to closing this chasm is for heads of tax to reinvest in the human-side of their technology capabilities.

Tech competency remains a challenge

Only 9% of tax professionals rate their colleagues as very competent with technology, according to the report. The majority (60%) said they consider their teams merely somewhat competent, while nearly one-third admit their departments lack technological competence altogether.

What makes this especially alarming is that larger companies with more resources are almost three times more likely to report competency gaps, with 39% of professionals saying this, compared to just 15% at smaller firms. Indeed, these larger organizations are the ones that have invested most heavily in sophisticated tech stacks and should theoretically have the most capable users.

Perhaps a reason for this competence gap is the failure to invest in consistent technology training and knowledge-sharing among peers. Despite being one of the most cost-effective performance levers available, only 50% of corporate tax professionals surveyed said their departments provided technology training in 2025. This is down from 59% the previous year.

This training deficit has consequences because most corporate tax departments remain stuck in the reactive or chaotic phase of technological maturity. Meanwhile, AI timelines are compressing rapidly. In fact, 39% of tax professionals said they now expect AI to be central to their workflow within 1 to 2 years, up from the 31% who thought it would take that long just last year.

Pendulum swing in hiring

The 2026 Corporate Tax Technology Report also reveals a dramatic reversal in hiring priorities that deserves careful attention. In 2024, 57% of new tax department roles were dedicated to tech/IT expertise, with only 24% prioritizing tax knowledge. By 2025, the script had completely flipped, with 62% of new hires now emphasizing tax expertise.

At smaller companies (those with revenue of less than $1 billion), the swing is even more extreme. In fact, 100% of new hires are now those with tax expertise rather than technology specialists.

This pendulum swing likely reflects a correction after years of heavy tech/IT hiring combined with greater technological maturity that subsequently requires less technology expertise. At the same time, however, the solution is not one or the other; rather, hiring for both makes the most sense. In fact, the data supports this as hybrid tax/tech roles are on the rise, according to the report.

4 actions corporate tax leaders should take now

While the data makes the problem of this frustration gap clear, the more pressing issue is what tax leaders can do about it right now. Four concrete actions stand out:

1. Make training non-negotiable 鈥� If corporate tax leaders are investing in technology but not in developing their people’s ability to use it effectively, they are wasting money. Make formal training 鈥� along with mentoring and peer knowledge-sharing 鈥� a performance requirement.

2. Hire for the future 鈥� The pendulum swing back to tax expertise is understandable, but it鈥檚 essential that heads of corporate tax departments do not overcorrect. Prioritize candidates who demonstrate both deep tax knowledge and technological fluency or invest in upskilling current staff with explicit development paths to build in the missing capability.

3. Track what matters 鈥� Two-thirds of tax departments now measure time savings and efficiency gains, while 55% track accuracy improvements. In addition, it is important to track where your corporate tax department staff are struggling with tools and where additional training or process optimization could unlock value.

4. Prepare for the AI acceleration 鈥� With 39% of corporate tax professionals expecting AI to be central to their work within the next 1 to 2 years and another 15% expecting it within a year, corporate tax executives must start experimenting with AI for technical research, compliance automation, and document analysis to build the team’s comfort and competency through hands-on experience.

The bottom line

The frustration gap among corporate tax professionals highlights the mismatch between advanced technological capability and the human capacity to leverage it. As one survey respondent described: “Technology is extremely important to reduce manual processes and help reduce errors. I don’t see a path for any tax department to not lean into technology.鈥�

However, leaning into technology without investing equally in your people is a recipe for disillusionment. The 56% dissatisfaction rate with current tech stacks underscores the frustration in the human-technology relationship and the perception that the technology tools are not solving users鈥� problems very well.

Those corporate tax departments that will thrive in the AI era will be the ones that invested in building technological competence, hired for hybrid capabilities, and created cultures of continuous learning. The technology maturity curve and the talent maturity curve must ascend together.

You can download a full copy of from the 成人VR视频 Institute and Tax Executives Institute here

Key takeaways:

• • • Your post-OBBBA forecasts should look different 鈥� If the tax department doesn’t own the OBBBA model, someone else will own the OBBBA story.

• • • Rely on your department鈥檚 inner strengths 鈥� It鈥檚 governance and analysis 鈥� not tools 鈥� that get you into the strategy room.

    • Factor in the conflict in the Middle East 鈥� The Iran war risk belongs in your tax model, not just in your CFO’s macro deck.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law in July 2025, enacted large business tax cuts, most notably by providing permanent full expensing of many forms of investment. Under the previous major corporate tax legislation, 2017鈥檚 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), bonus depreciation was scheduled for gradual phase-out following 2023. The OBBBA restored that expensing 100% retroactively for assets acquired from mid-January 2025 onwards.

The after-tax cost of new machinery, fleets, and equipment has effectively fallen by around 21%, designed to encourage immediate capital outlays by allowing businesses to write off these expenses in the year they are incurred rather than amortizing them over five years.

For corporate tax departments, that’s not a disclosure footnote 鈥� that’s your capital plan.

Capital-intensive corporations will see tax burdens reduced through permanent rate extensions, depreciation adjustments, and expansion of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap 鈥� but only if your models are built to capture the timing and location of investment, the mix of debt compared to equity, and where your organization books its next dollar of income.

Not surprisingly, most corporate tax departments aren’t there yet. They’re still recalculating last year, plus a few adjustments. That’s glorified compliance, not modeling.

A standout tax department doesn’t ask, What’s the OBBBA impact? Rather, it asks, Which version of OBBBA do we choose for this business? 鈥� and it has the models to back it up.

From spreadsheet heroics to controlled modeling

For many organizations, tax modeling still means creating a massive spreadsheet that only one director truly understands. The spreadsheet gets pulled out for budget season, rebuilt under pressure, and quietly retired until next year. That’s a single point of failure, not a process.

And after OBBBA, continuing that practice is dangerous. One wrong assumption on expensing or interest limitation can move cash tax by millions of dollars and blindside the Finance Department.

Here’s what disciplined modeling looks like in practice:

• • • Create a unified model 鈥� Build one integrated model that the whole team can use or accept that your department is choosing to fly blind.
    • Use the same assumptions 鈥� Standardize the levers that matter most (such as capex timing, financing mix, jurisdiction, and incentives) and make sure every scenario runs off the same assumptions.
    • Conduct modeling reviews 鈥� Treat major OBBBA-driven decisions (such as large capex, funding shifts, supply-chain redesign) as tax deals that must go through a modeling review before they’re greenlit.
    • Document your assumptions explicitly 鈥� Under permanent full expensing, the difference between a well-supported assumption and a poorly documented one isn’t just an audit risk, rather it’s a credibility problem with your CFO.

It鈥檚 also important to remember that in a post-OBBBA world, this level of disciplined modeling is not technology transformation 鈥� it鈥檚 basic survival.

Governance: Where leaders quietly win or loudly fail

The differentiator isn’t which corporate tax department has the fanciest tool 鈥� it’s which one has the cleanest governance. And the data is unambiguous: More than half (55%) of tax departments are still in the reactive phase of their technological development, stuck with five capex models circulating with five discount rates and the tax team arriving late to the planning meeting.

Those tax departments that are breaking out of that pattern share one trait: They put someone formally in charge. In the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent 2026 Corporate Tax Department Technology Report, a large portion (88%) of survey respondents said their company had appointed a person to lead the tax department’s technology strategy. That number jumped a whopping 37 percentage points, from 51%, from the previous year鈥檚 survey. That single structural move separates those departments with a governance model from those that simply hold a governance conversation every budget cycle and forget about it.

Clearly, this type of ownership drives results. Two-thirds of those surveyed agreed that their company’s investment in technology has enabled a shift from routine, reactive work to more strategic, proactive, higher-value work.

Under OBBBA, the kind of governance isn’t housekeeping. It’s how you get invited into strategy discussions instead of having to clean up after things go awry.

Why your OBBBA win may not feel like a win

On paper, the tax changes embedded in the OBBBA look generous. In practice, your effective tax benefit is colliding with something you don’t control.

When the war on Iran began, all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was effectively halted, removing roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply from the market. Fuel prices throughout the world spiked and are likely to remain elevated as long as conflict persists.

With oil prices hovering around $100 a barrel, there are will wipe out the benefits of higher tax refunds this year for most Americans. If those benefits, arising from Trump’s 2025 tax cuts, are erased for the average American, only the top 30% of taxpayers will still seeing a net gain.

For corporate planning purposes, the parallel dynamic is real: The topline OBBBA benefit is being eroded by higher fuel, freight, and financing costs across the business and its supply chain.

Inflationary pressures are being driven by higher energy prices tied to the Iran war, and the conflict’s impact on a wide range of goods and services is likely to last for months 鈥� with experts saying even a ceasefire is unlikely to immediately ease global energy shortages.

A serious corporate tax department doesn’t handwave these concerns away. It takes three actions:

1. 1. 1. Run a war-extended scenario 鈥� The scenario should show exactly how sustained higher energy costs and borrowing rates change the payoff from accelerated expensing and leverage 鈥� with specific numbers, not just directional commentary.
      2. Share your forecasts internally 鈥� Put your monthly or quarterly cash-tax forecasts on the table for Finance to see, so that it can manage liquidity rather than hope the annual plan holds.
      3. Force the hard conversation 鈥� Ask the tough question: At today’s rates and fuel costs, the after-tax return on this project is X. Are we still in? That question should come from the tax team now, not from the finance team six months later.

Clearly, the daily fluctuations in oil prices matter less than monthly and quarterly averages 鈥� and volatility will likely remain elevated given the absence of a clear timeline for the end of the war. That’s exactly the kind of sustained uncertainty that belongs front and center in your scenario set, not in a footnote.

The bottom line

The OBBBA gives corporate tax departments a genuine opportunity to move from being simply a compliance function to becoming more of a strategic advisor. Permanent full expensing, richer cost recovery, and more flexible interest rules can create real levers to add value, but only for those organizations that model them rigorously, govern them cleanly, and stress-test them against the macro environment their business actually faces today.

Indeed, the Iran war is a live test of that readiness. The corporate tax departments that show up with modeled scenarios, cash-tax forecasts, and a clear point of view on after-tax returns will earn a seat at the strategy table. The ones that show up with caveats will be asked to leave it.

You can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent 2026 Corporate Tax Department Technology Report here

Key takeaways:

• • • Country-by-country reporting will only increase in complexity 鈥� Australia’s enhanced Country-by-country reporting (CbCR) requirements 鈥� reconciling taxes accrued against taxes credited 鈥� are a preview of where other high-scrutiny jurisdictions are heading, and companies need to build that explanatory analysis capability now, systematically, rather than scrambling later.

    • There has to be a shared narrative from corporate teams 鈥� The EU鈥檚 public CbCR is a reputational event, not just a filing. So that means tax, communications, and investor relations teams need a shared narrative before the data goes public 鈥� inconsistencies create exposure you do not want to manage reactively.

    • Rethink your filing jurisdiction in light of changes 鈥� If EU filing jurisdiction was chosen at initial implementation and never revisited, look again. Guidance has matured, and a more efficient or better-suited option may now be available.

WASHINGTON, DC 鈥� Among the many pressing topics discussed in detail at the recent , country-by-country reporting (CbCR) and its ability to reshape the corporate tax industry, certainly had its place. Between escalating local jurisdiction requirements, the , and for deeper explanatory disclosures, CbCR has quietly evolved from a transfer pricing filing obligation into something far more strategically consequential.

The floor is just the floor

The creation of the by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was intended as a minimum standard for countries. And now jurisdictions are increasingly layering additional requirements on top of the OECD鈥檚 basic template, resulting in a widening gap between the standard requirements and what tax authorities actually want.

Currently, Australia is the most pointed example. Australian tax authorities are now requiring multinational groups to go beyond the standard CbCR data fields and provide explanatory narratives that reconcile taxes accrued against taxes actually credited. This requires corporate tax departments to bridge the gap between financial statement accruals and their organizations鈥� cash tax positions in a way that is coherent, defensible, and consistent with positions taken elsewhere.

At the TEI event, panelists explained that for tax departments this will carry complex timing differences, deferred tax positions, or significant jurisdictional mismatches between booked and cash taxes. Indeed, this additional layer of scrutiny will need dedicated attention.

The broader signal matters: Australia will not be the last jurisdiction to move in this direction. So that means that tax departments should treat Australia’s approach as a leading indicator of where other high-scrutiny jurisdictions could be heading. Building the capability to produce this kind of explanatory analysis systematically 鈥� rather than scrambling jurisdiction by jurisdiction 鈥� would be the smarter long-term investment for corporate tax teams.

Public CbCR in the EU: The transparency ratchet has turned

For US-based multinationals with significant European operations, the EU’s public CbCR directive has fundamentally changed the calculus. Unlike the confidential tax authority filings most corporate tax departments are accustomed to, the EU鈥檚 public CbCR rules put organizations鈥� jurisdictional profit and tax data into the public domain, making it visible to investors, journalists, civil society groups, and organizations鈥� employees and customers.

The EU framework specifies which entities trigger the reporting obligation and which entity within the group is responsible for making the public filing. That scoping analysis is not always straightforward for complex multinational structures and getting it wrong could present both reputational and legal risk.

Choosing a filing jurisdiction is not purely an administrative decision 鈥� it is a choice that affects the regulatory environment that governs the disclosure, the language requirements, the timing, and the interpretive framework that applies to data.

For US-headquartered groups, the implications extend well beyond Europe. Public CbCR data is now being read alongside US disclosures, reporting on ESG activities, and public narratives about tax governance. Inconsistencies, including those technically explainable, could create unwanted noise about the company. This is clearly another reason why the tax function should partner across the business 鈥� in this case with the communications team 鈥� to make they both are aligned to tell the CbCR story instead of being caught off guard by a journalist or an investor during an earnings call.

Questions that US multinationals should be asking

Fortunately, US multinationals with multiple EU subsidiaries are not required to file public CbCR reports in every EU member state in which they have a presence. Instead, under the EU framework, a qualifying ultimate parent or standalone undertaking can satisfy the public disclosure requirement through a single filing in one EU member state, provided the relevant conditions are met. Germany and the Netherlands have emerged as two of the more popular choices for this consolidated filing approach, given their well-developed regulatory frameworks and the depth of available guidance on what compliant disclosure looks like in practice.

The strategic implication is meaningful. Choosing a filing jurisdiction is not purely an administrative decision 鈥� it is a choice that affects the regulatory environment that governs the disclosure, the language requirements, the timing, and the interpretive framework that applies to data. Corporate tax departments that defaulted to a filing jurisdiction early in the EU implementation process should take a fresh look. Regulatory guidance has matured significantly, and there may be a more efficient or better-suited path available than the one originally chosen.

The uncomfortable divergence

There is a notable irony in the current environment. Domestically, the IRS and U.S. Treasury’s 2025-2026 Priority Guidance Plan reflects an explicit focus on deregulation and burden reduction, detailing dozens of projects aimed at reducing compliance costs for US businesses. Meanwhile, the international compliance environment has moved in the opposite direction, adding disclosure layers, explanatory requirements, and public transparency obligations that many US businesses cannot avoid simply because they are headquartered in the United States.

This divergence has a direct implication for how tax departments allocate resources and make the internal case for investment in international compliance infrastructure. The burden internationally is not going down 鈥� indeed, it is intensifying 鈥� and that argument is now backed by concrete examples rather than projections.

3 things worth doing now

There are several actions that corporate tax teams should consider, including:

Audit CbCR data quality with Australia’s enhanced requirements in mind 鈥� If you cannot readily reconcile taxes accrued to taxes credited at the jurisdictional level, that gap needs to be closed before it becomes an authority inquiry.

Revisit EU filing jurisdiction strategy 鈥� If your jurisdictional decision was made at the time of initial implementation and has not been reviewed since, it is worth a fresh look before the next reporting cycle.

Develop an internal narrative around public CbCR data before it circulates externally 鈥� Your company鈥檚 tax story should not be a surprise to the corporate teams involved in communications, investor relations, or ESG 鈥� and in today鈥檚 world, assuming such news stays quiet is no longer a safe assumption.

While CbCR started as a tool for tax authorities, it today has become something more visible, more public, and more consequential than that 鈥� and that trajectory is not reversing any time soon.

You can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚

Key insights:

• • • Possibilities vs. practicality 鈥� There is a growing frustration gap between what corporate tax professionals want to achieve and what their current technological tools will allow.

    • Expectations about AI 鈥� Tax professionals have significantly accelerated the timeframe in which they expect AI to become a central part of their workflow.

    • Proactive progress 鈥� Automation is enabling a gradual shift toward more strategic, proactive tax work, although not as quickly as many tax professionals would like.

The recently released , from the 成人VR视频 Institute and Tax Executives Institute, reveals that while automation of routine tax functions is indeed enabling a long-desired shift toward more strategic, proactive tax work in some corporate tax departments, a majority of tax leaders surveyed say upgrading their department鈥檚 tax technology is still a relatively low priority at their company.

Jump to 鈫�

2026 Corporate Tax Department Technology Report

The report surveyed 170 tax leaders from companies of all sizes to find out how corporate tax professionals are using technology, overcoming obstacles, and planning for the future.

A growing 鈥渇rustration gap鈥�

In general, the report found that while many companies (especially larger ones) are actively upgrading their tax department鈥檚 technological capabilities, there is a growing frustration gap between what tax professionals know they can accomplish with more robust technologies and what their current tools allow them to do.

Adding to this frustration is a growing discrepancy between the additional budget and resources tax departments hope to get each year and the harsher reality they often face. Indeed, even though tax leaders remain optimistic that their budgets and capabilities will expand and improve in the coming years, fewer than half of the respondents surveyed said their departments received a budget increase last year, and many saw budget cuts.

Further, the report shows that the prospect of incorporating ever more sophisticated forms of AI and AI-driven tools into tax workflows is also very much on the minds of tax professionals. Even though the actual usage of AI in corporate tax departments is still relatively low, the report reveals that tax professionals now expect AI become a central part of their workflow within one to two years, much faster than they did in last year鈥檚 report.

Indeed, as the report explains, this expectation of more imminent AI adoption represents a significant shift in attitude, because most corporate tax departments are rather circumspect about how, when, and why they incorporate new tech tools into their established routines.

If today鈥檚 technological capabilities continue to accelerate, companies that have been slow to invest in the infrastructure necessary to keep pace may soon find themselves struggling to catch up with their more tech-savvy counterparts, the report warns.

Moving toward more proactive work, albeit slowly

For companies that have invested in the technological infrastructure necessary to support advanced tax technologies, the payoff is becoming increasingly evident.

According to the report, about two-thirds (67%) of tax professionals surveyed said their company鈥檚 investment in technology had enabled a shift toward more proactive tax work within their departments. This shift is particularly noticeable at large corporations, at which, unsurprisingly, investment in tax technology has been more generous.

The 2026 Corporate Tax Department Technology Report also explores other aspects of corporate tax departments, including their hiring practices, tech training, purchasing strategies, what they see as the most popular tech tools for tax, and numerous other factors that affect how tax departments operate.

You can download

a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute’s here

Key takeaways:

• • • Automation is a top priority, but progress is slow 鈥� While automation ranks highly among corporate tax leaders’ priorities, leaders from a majority of tax departments still view their automation efforts as reactive or chaotic rather than optimized or predictive.

    • Resource constraints limit automation efforts 鈥� More than half of respondents say their tax departments feel under-resourced, and those departments with limited resources are much more likely to struggle with implementing effective automation strategies.

    • Departments need to invest to see automation returns 鈥� Most tax departments attempt to tackle automation internally, often relying on hybrid roles rather than dedicated technology professionals, which can further strain already limited resources and hinder progress.

The corporate tax world wishes to automate. This likely isn鈥檛 a surprise, given the increasingly complex and ever-changing nature of tax laws and regulations, particularly over the past year. In fact, according to the recently published 2025 State of the Corporate Tax Department report from the 成人VR视频 Institute and Tax Executives Institute, 10% of corporate tax leaders named process automation as their single top priority for the next 18 months, and about one-quarter of them have it as a Top 3 priority. That trails only tax compliance, planning & strategy, and new tax legislation among trends that are top of mind among corporate tax leaders today.

This heightened level of importance for automation may be a reflection of where tax departments view their efforts currently. The same report reveals that more than two-thirds of survey respondents view the levels of automation within their tax departments as reactive or chaotic, while very few are taking an optimized or predictive posture. Clearly, there is work to be done in order to extract the most from workflow tools, or even next-generation technologies such as .

This begs the question, however: Even if corporate tax leaders are trying to automate, how are they going to go about actually doing so? As with many initiatives in the business world, it may be easier said than done.

Corporate tax departments have long been asked to do more with less, and many are feeling the effects of limited resources for daily tax work, let alone new technology investment and implementation. At the same time, however, research reveals that many of these same departments are looking to tackle automation initiatives on their own, eschewing outside aid from service providers or other third parties.

Clearly, something has to give in order to automate the department. Either corporate tax departments need to find resources to dedicate to true automation, or they need to figure out how to better work with outside providers to make automation occur. Because as it stands now, many departments risk being stuck in a state of stasis, never being able to truly bring their automation beyond a reactive posture.

Automation issues

Process automation can provide a major boon to corporate tax departments, if it is implemented correctly. Actions such as integrating and centralizing data through an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, breaking down silos to facilitate cross-departmental coordination and communication, and implementing cutting-edge technologies such as AI can help tax professionals gain greater speed, accuracy, and efficiency.

However, it鈥檚 clear that many tax professionals do not believe their organizations are automating in a way that allows for more proactive technology usage. In fact, 68% say they view their organization鈥檚 technology and automation usage as chaotic or reactive 鈥� only slightly better than in last year鈥檚 report.

This skeptical view towards their tax department鈥檚 technology posture also is not unique to any particular size or geographic location of their company. More than 60% of respondents from companies with less than $50 million in annual revenue took a negative view towards the state of automation; yet the same holds true for respondents from companies with more than $5 billion in annual revenue. And while global respondents were slightly more bullish on automation than their counterparts in the United States, the need for more automation is clearly a global goal.

Some interesting differences occur, however, when cross-tabulating opinions of automation with whether a respondent feels their department is adequately resourced. In total, 58% of respondents say they feel their department is under-resourced (an increase of 7 percentage points from last year), while just 38% say they feel their department is resourced about right, with the remainder unsure.

To be sure, there is some technology consternation even among those that say they feel their organization is adequately resourced. More than half (55%) of that group say they feel 听their automation posture was either reactive or chaotic, displaying that adequate resources are not a panacea to technology woes.

A lack of resources, however, can certainly seem to exacerbate the problem. Among respondents who say they feel their department is under-resourced, 77% called their automation posture chaotic or reactive, 22 percentage points higher than did respondents at adequately resourced departments. Just 4% of this under-resourced group felt their automation was either optimized or predictive, compared to 10% of the adequately resourced group.

Automation plans into action

One might expect that corporate tax departments would be looking for outside help 鈥� either from the rest of the business or from third parties 鈥� particularly given the effect of resource constraints on technology efforts. After all, automation is just one priority among a number of complex areas within the tax department, and it鈥檚 also not an area that many tax professionals may be naturally equipped to tackle.

However, when asked about their primary strategies for tackling automation internally, many tax departments are still mainly looking in-house. Some are working with their company鈥檚 IT or senior leadership, while fewer are working with outside vendors or consultants. Among companies of all sizes, however, the primary way most are tackling automation is through a team within the tax department itself.

Tax departments within larger companies do tend to have more resources, both monetary and in personnel, and thus have more capability to tackle tax automation in-house. Even at smaller companies, however, most are attempting to stretch resources internally rather than setting aside budget for external help.

Often, this means training existing staff on technology, given that few tax departments have technologists directly on staff. In a separate report from the 成人VR视频 Institute and the Tax Executives Institute released earlier this year, the , our research found that just 15% of survey respondents say their tax departments have a technology-specific professional within the department, while 28% say they have technology personnel shared with another department such as finance. However, the most common way of staffing technology matters is through hybrid roles, the report shows, with more than half (52%) of departments primarily staffing their technology initiatives through hybrid personnel that hold both tax and technology job functions.

Again, this begs the question: How big of a priority is automation truly for today鈥檚 tax departments? Department leadership claims that it is one of their top priorities moving forward, but tax professionals still see a reactive or chaotic posture towards automation in their own work. Further, attempts to change this dynamic are largely internal, often being left to personnel with dual tax/technology roles who may be already feeling the pressure of being under-resourced and having to do more with less.

Ultimately, automation should be a top-level strategy decision for tax departments, not something simply alluded to with lip service. Is automating the department鈥檚 work processes actually a priority? Would automation provide positive returns, making it worth the investment? What mix of personnel would actually lead to success, rather than to what is expedient?

If automation is truly a priority, corporate tax leaders need to dedicate actually impactful resources to technology projects, above and beyond stretching internal tax professionals further. Otherwise, today鈥檚 tax departments risk never moving beyond a reactive technology posture.

You can download a full copy of the 2025 State of the Corporate Tax Department report, published by the 成人VR视频 Institute and Tax Executives Institute, here

Plan for change

Before any decisions are made, however, corporate leaders need to understand that merely purchasing the latest technology does not guarantee success. That鈥檚 because in the context of a corporation, technological change also means cultural change. Introducing a new technological ecosystem means changing how people work, what roles they play, the skills they need, the procedures they follow, and many other variables, including those involving budget allocations and personnel shifts. Additional challenges also come from structural inertia, competing priorities, and cultural resistance to change.

Failing to plan for this inevitable turbulence all but ensures that a company鈥檚 technological investment will be squandered, and that the expected boost in productivity and performance will not materialize. Leaders and managers need to shift their thinking under these circumstances 鈥� before any new technological solution is purchases and pursued 鈥� because the speed at which technology is advancing today requires a more aggressively proactive approach to management. No one can afford to be passive anymore 鈥� the consequences of stasis are simply too dire.

The goal of moving toward a proactive approach

That said, technology transitions are the perfect time to realign a tax department鈥檚 strategies and goals with the vision of the larger organization, and to initiate cultural and procedural changes that will serve everyone better in the long run. Managed well, these changes can also help tax departments re-position themselves within the organization and help assert the tax function as one that can deliver higher levels of value and leadership.

If your organization is still struggling to evolve technologically, however, don鈥檛 panic. Few corporate tax departments have truly mastered their technological universe. In fact, according to the recently released听2025 Corporate Tax Technology Report听from the 成人VR视频 Institute and Tax Executives Institute, more than half of corporate tax professionals still describe their department鈥檚 relationship with technology as 鈥渃haotic鈥� or 鈥渞eactive,鈥� whereas roughly one-third (35%) said they thought their departments had reached the 鈥減roactive鈥� stage of the technology maturity curve, in which the investment in planning, training, and technology really starts to pay off.

In other words, it is not too late to nudge the needle toward proactive, no matter where a company is on its technological journey. Indeed, most companies are in between phases, trying to get the most out of the technology they already have while simultaneously planning for 鈥� or actively upgrading to 鈥� new technologies.

Vital steps for a smooth transition

In general, however, corporate tax departments should take the following steps to incorporate new technologies in ways that advance departmental goals and establish a proactive approach to tax management and compliance. These ways include:

Developing a strategic technology plan 鈥� Piecemeal, ad hoc solutions (reactive by nature) will only guarantee frustration and failure. To get on the right track, tax department leaders should develop a strategic plan for how the new technology will be used and why. The overall goal of such a plan should be to articulate precisely how the new technology will serve the department and the organization. Some questions to consider are:

• • • How will the technology help align the department鈥檚 goals with the company鈥檚 goals?
    • What tasks should be automated 鈥� and which ones shouldn鈥檛?
    • What additional skills will employees need to use the technology effectively?
    • How will the technology create process efficiencies and improve compliance?
    • What additional capabilities will the technology give the department?
    • How will those new capabilities be utilized or leveraged?

Creating a technology roadmap 鈥� Once a strategy has been developed, it鈥檚 essential to create a technology roadmap 鈥� a detailed, step-by-step breakdown of the implementation process that explains how the project will unfold, the timeline, and what to expect along the way. Take into consideration that tech transitions don鈥檛 happen instantly; they take time, so thoroughness is a virtue here.

Placing someone in charge 鈥� According to our Corporate Tax Technology report, only about half of all companies have an individual in place who is formally empowered to guide the overall tech strategy for their tax department. Don鈥檛 make that mistake, because leadership is essential for any tech transition. Ideally, the person in charge, whatever their title, should have both tech experience and deep knowledge of the company鈥檚 larger operations. Experience and training in change management is also a plus, because tech transitions aren鈥檛 just about the technology. Indeed, those who neglect to address the impact that technological change is going to have on the workforce are missing half the picture.

Communicating early and often 鈥� It cannot be stressed enough how important it is to keep open lines of communication with tax teams and the larger network of stakeholders throughout the organization who may be affected by a new technological ecosystem. Within the tax department, it鈥檚 important to articulate a vision of the future, one that explains how job roles are likely to change, how the department鈥檚 processes and workflows will be affected, what performance expectations will look like after the transition, and how the department will adapt to better serve the needs of the larger organization.

Training for the technological future 鈥� While most large companies (those with more than $1 billion in annual revenue) have technology training programs, smaller companies tend to struggle in this area. However, technology training isn鈥檛 just about teaching people to use software tools effectively, it鈥檚 also about continuously upgrading people鈥檚 skills so that they can make more productive use of these tools going forward. Training, in other words, is the best way to ensure that the organization gets the most out of its technology investment.

Launching pilot projects 鈥� Communication and training provide a solid theoretical foundation for technology usage, but nothing beats hands-on experience. A great way to ease into the future is to develop pilot projects that allow people to apply new tech tools and discover for themselves what fresh capabilities they have at their fingertips. Pilot projects can also help troubleshoot departmental operations that may be impacted by the technology and give team members the opportunity to brainstorm potential solutions.

Toward a more proactive approach to tax

At the top of the corporate food chain, investing in a new technological ecosystem is about improving productivity and profits. At the departmental level, however, the above preparations lay the groundwork for a much more dynamic tax function that leverages new technology to potentially redefine its role within the organization.

Once the technology is in place, tax professionals are essentially entering a brave new world 鈥� one in which it is possible to guarantee compliance, mitigate almost all risk, and drastically reduce the chance of damaging audits and penalties. A much larger universe of tax data also gives departments the power to analyze supply-chain risks and inefficiencies, develop new tax strategies, and scout the horizon for new opportunities to save money and create value for the business.

These are just a few of the benefits of a more proactive approach to tax management, but only those tax department leaders who plan and prepare properly will be positioned to get the most out of the tech-driven future of corporate tax management.

You can download a copy of the recently released听2025 Corporate Tax Technology Report听from the 成人VR视频 Institute and Tax Executives Institute here

With this in mind, it鈥檚 no surprise that many corporate tax professionals believe their departments are behind the curve of technological innovation. The recently released 2025 Corporate Tax Technology Report from the 成人VR视频 Institute and Tax Executives Institute finds that more than half (57%) of corporate tax professionals rate their department鈥檚 technology maturity as chaotic or reactive. Just 6%, meanwhile, call their department鈥檚 tech position optimized or predictive.

So, with few resources to devote to technology, how are today鈥檚 tax departments looking to keep up with innovation? The answer comes with dual tax/technology roles 鈥� and it鈥檚 a skill set that tax professionals may need to adopt sooner rather than later.

The tax technologist

According to the 2025 Corporate Tax Technology Report, tax departments are undertaking a wide variety of strategies around hiring technology resources. Some (17%) survey respondents said their departments are outsourcing technology services entirely, while slightly fewer (15%) reported their departments had hired technology consultants within the past year.

But far and away, the most common strategy for tax departments is to try and tackle innovation through in-house resources. 鈥淚t is going to become more and more necessary, as new laws and initiatives role out (ex: Pillar 2),鈥� said one survey respondent. 鈥淏usinesses may not want to spend on new technology but will need to if they don’t want to outsource the work. I believe if the department has the capability to do the work in-house, getting functioning software is the best option, instead of outsourcing it completely.鈥�

In practice, that has meant having personnel with dual roles 鈥� those who conduct tax work but are also in charge of innovation.

The preponderance of these sorts of roles is not particularly surprising. Given the resource limitations at many corporate tax departments 鈥� and especially smaller departments 鈥� it is still rare to see dedicated IT job functions solely within the tax department. Given the unique nature of tax work, however, less than one-third (28%) of respondents said their department primarily relies on shared IT job functions for technology personnel resourcing.

Today鈥檚 tax department wants somebody who can do both. Sometimes, that means finding a tax professional who is drawn to the technology, then empowering them to lead innovation. 鈥淚鈥檓 happy to be part of transforming tax department functions,鈥� said one respondent to the report. 鈥淚 started by learning processes and improving them over time with technology, and now I lead a team with a focus on how we can use technology to be more efficient and re-use data in multiple processes.鈥�

Increasingly, however, many tax departments are taking the opposite approach: hiring a technologist and teaching them tax rules. In fact, of respondents who said their department had hired a technology professional solely for the tax department, 57% said the hire had come with a primarily technology background, 24% came from a tax background, and the remaining 19% were from another background or unknown.

For these departments, the goal is to be able to teach a technologist what can be automated, and what should stay the purview of the tax professional. 鈥淭echnology will transform the tax department,鈥� said one respondent. 鈥淭here will be a bigger shift to all staff being even more analytical compared to their abilities now. The technology will do all the nonanalytical work.鈥�

The future of tax/tech jobs

The fact that more than half of tax departments now rely on dual tax/technology roles may be a surprise to those used to a more reserved department posture 鈥� but corporate tax professionals say they believe this may only be the beginning.

In line with current resourcing trends, fewer than half of all respondents said they believe their departments will have new job roles due to technology within the next 3 to 5 years. Notably, however, the total that do expect new job roles has risen seven percentage points in the past year alone 鈥� to 39% in 2025 from 32% in 2024.

Even greater is the proportion who said they believe technology will change current job roles within the next 3 to 5 years, which now stands at more than half of respondents (55%), compared to just 41% who said they anticipated role changes in 2024.

Already, some departments are hoping that infusing technology into tax work will help close the resource gap. One survey respondent said they were 鈥渉opeful that it will bring efficiency and better ROI [return on investment]. It is difficult to find good employees in accounting and tax, and leveraging AI and tech will bridge that gap.鈥�

For tax professionals themselves, however, there is also a lesson: The time to begin acquiring technology skills is now. Especially with so many tax department leaders moving towards dual tax/tech roles 鈥� and with more likely on the way 鈥� training on technology can be a surefire way to make a resume more attractive. Those who become fluent in new technologies such as generative AI (GenAI) will automatically stand out in a market desperate for tax workers already, let alone those who can conduct work more efficiently and skillfully.

And those who don鈥檛 adapt to this new tax technology paradigm may slowly start to be left behind. 鈥淎 lot of our lower-level positions will be replaced by technology,鈥� one survey respondent said. 鈥淭he people holding those positions seem to be ignoring that reality. It will pose significant challenges in developing talent to fill senior positions.鈥�

You can download a full copy of the 2025 Corporate Tax Technology Report here