AICPA Advocacy Targets Taxpayer Service, AI Assurance and CPA Workforce Issues

The AICPA’s advocacy priorities span immediate service problems and longer-term questions about the accounting profession’s role in a changing economy. Recent efforts have focused on confusing refund notices, taxpayer protections, artificial intelligence assurance, and the workforce that supports CPA practice. The common thread is member experience: practitioners identify where systems create friction, then help develop proposals and recommendations for decision makers.

The work involves the AICPA’s federal advocacy, tax, and state relations teams, along with volunteers, subject matter experts, and state CPA societies. The organization says it uses meetings, written recommendations, coalition work, direct outreach, and member engagement to put the profession’s experience into discussions about tax administration and business issues.

Refund notices show how administrative details affect taxpayers

One recent effort centered on IRS CP53E notices. The notices are sent when a taxpayer’s refund cannot be deposited directly and is instead issued as a paper check. Some recipients received them because of minor issues or small amounts they hadn’t expected. The result, according to the AICPA, was confusion about the refund’s status and delays in resolving questions.

After hearing from members, the AICPA raised the notice’s effects and its administration with IRS leadership. Its recommendations sought clearer information for taxpayers and a more efficient route to receiving refunds. The organization describes the effort as a practical response to a narrow administrative problem with consequences for both taxpayers and the professionals helping them.

That example points to a recurring challenge in tax administration: automated notices can be technically routine while still leaving recipients unsure what happened or what to do next. When clients bring those questions to tax professionals, unclear instructions can add work for preparers and extend the time needed to resolve a case. The AICPA’s account does not specify the changes made or quantify any reduction in delays, so the result to watch is whether revised communications make refund status and next steps clearer.

Making the case for CPA work in AI assurance

The AICPA’s federal advocacy team is also seeking recognition of CPAs’ role in artificial intelligence (AI) attestation and governance. The case rests on existing assurance experience: CPAs work under professional standards and ethical requirements intended to support confidence in assurance engagements, and have experience assessing information systems used in decision making.

In AI-related work, CPAs may provide independent advisory and assurance services on governance, security, safety, and reliability. Those areas matter to organizations assessing how AI systems are managed and whether their results can be relied on for business decisions. The profession’s argument is that established assurance skills can apply as companies build and use these systems.

The field is still emerging. The AICPA sees AI assurance and governance as a possible new service area, but its eventual scale will depend on how organizations use AI and what independent review they need. For accounting firms, the opportunity would also require relevant expertise and a clear understanding of the standards that apply to each engagement. The AICPA points readers to “A New Frontier: CPAs as AI System Evaluators”, published in the Journal of Accountancy on Nov. 1, 2025.

Two proposals focus on taxpayer rights and filing certainty

The Taxpayer Assistance and Service (TAS) Act and the Simplify Automatic Filing Extensions (SAFE) Act address different parts of the taxpayer experience. Both reflect the AICPA’s stated priorities of fairness, efficiency, transparency, and service.

The TAS Act would strengthen taxpayer protections and improve accountability in tax administration. Its provisions are designed to address persistent administrative problems, improve transparency and dispute resolution, strengthen the role of the national taxpayer advocate, and set minimum professional standards for tax return preparers. Those provisions touch both the way taxpayers resolve disagreements and the expectations placed on people preparing returns.

The SAFE Act would create a common safe harbor for individual filing extensions. The proposal aims to give taxpayers greater certainty and reduce inadvertent penalties, while recognizing the practical challenges taxpayers and preparers can face when meeting filing deadlines. Its effect would depend on the proposal’s final terms and how taxpayers and preparers apply the safe harbor.

The AICPA supports both measures. They remain proposals, so the practical implications for taxpayers and practitioners depend on whether and how their provisions are adopted. For now, they show how the profession is trying to connect common client difficulties with changes to the rules and processes that shape tax administration.

Member input feeds work at federal and state levels

The AICPA says its advocacy process starts with identifying issues affecting practitioners, businesses, and taxpayers. Staff expertise, member feedback, subject matter specialists, and collaboration with state CPA societies help determine which concerns merit attention and what technical recommendations may address them.

Volunteer members contribute practical and technical knowledge, particularly on regulatory matters. Advocacy staff communicate the profession’s views on legislative priorities and engage decision makers and agency staff. The organization also uses meetings, comment letters, coalition efforts, grassroots outreach, and direct contact with federal agencies to advance its positions.

State CPA societies are part of that work, too. The AICPA describes state-level efforts as an important source of initiatives that affect practitioners and the profession’s future. Societies support changes related to CPA mobility, licensure, workforce development, and professional standards, and explain tax and business issues to state decision makers.

For members, the process offers a route for raising operational problems that might otherwise remain individual client complaints. For taxpayers and businesses, the significance depends on whether recommendations lead to clearer processes, workable protections, or better-informed decisions. The examples so far range from a specific refund notice to the broader question of how independent assurance can apply to AI. Tracking the proposals’ progress and the results of administrative changes will show how much member input translates into practical improvements.