Key takeaways:

• • • Country-by-country reporting will only increase in complexity — Australia’s enhanced Country-by-country reporting (CbCR) requirements — reconciling taxes accrued against taxes credited — 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 — The EU’s 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 — inconsistencies create exposure you do not want to manage reactively.

    • Rethink your filing jurisdiction in light of changes — 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 — 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’s 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’ 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 — rather than scrambling jurisdiction by jurisdiction — 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’s public CbCR rules put organizations’ jurisdictional profit and tax data into the public domain, making it visible to investors, journalists, civil society groups, and organizations’ 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 — 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 — in this case with the communications team — 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 — 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 — indeed, it is intensifying — 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 — 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 — 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 — Your company’s tax story should not be a surprise to the corporate teams involved in communications, investor relations, or ESG — and in today’s 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 — and that trajectory is not reversing any time soon.

You can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s

Key takeaways:

• • • Only IEEPA‑based tariffs are up for refund — Refunds will flow electronically to importers of record through ACE, the government’s digital import/export system, but only once CBP’s process is finalized.

    • Liquidation and protest timelines are now critical — An organization’s tax concepts that directly influence which entries are eligible and how long companies have to protect claims.

    • Tax functions must quickly coordinate with other corporate functions — In-house tax teams need to coordinate with their organization’s trade, procurement, and accounting functions to gather data, assert entitlement, and get the financial reporting right on any tariff refunds.

WASHINGTON, DC — When the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling on President Donald J. Trump’s authority to impose mass tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February it set the stage for what it to come.

The Court ruled the president did not have authority under IEEPA to impose the tariffs that generated an estimated $163 billion of revenue in 2025. In response, the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a ruling in requiring the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to issue refunds on IEEPA duties for entries that have not gone final. That order, however, is currently suspended while CBP designs the refund process and the government considers an appeal.

AtĚýthe recent , tax experts discussed what this ruling means for corporate tax departments, outline what is and isn’t a consideration for refunds and the steps necessary to apply for refunds.

As panelists explained, the key issue for tax departments is that only IEEPA tariffs are in scope for refund — many other tariffs remain firmly in place. For example, on steel, aluminum, and copper; Section 301 tariffs on certain Chinese-origin goods; and new of 10% to 15% on most imports still apply and will continue to shape effective duty rates and supply chain costs.

So, which entities can actually get their money back?

Legally, CBP will send refunds only to the importer of record, and only electronically through the government’s digital import/export system, known as the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system. That means every potential claimant needs an with current bank information on file. And creating an account or updating it can be a lengthy process, especially inside a large organization.

If a business was not the importer of record but had tariffs contractually passed through to it — for example, by explicit tariff clauses, amended purchase orders, or separate line items on invoices — they may still have a commercial basis to recover their share from the importer. In practice, that means corporate tax teams should sit down with both the organization’s procurement experts and its largest suppliers to identify tariff‑sharing arrangements and understand what actions those importers are planning to take.

Why liquidation suddenly matters to tax leaders

As said, the Atmus ruling is limited to entries that are not final, which hinges on the . CBP typically has one year to review an entry and liquidate it (often around 314 days for formal entries) with some informal entries liquidating much sooner.

Once an entry liquidates, the 180‑day protest clock starts. Within that window, the importer of record can challenge CBP’s decision, and those protested entries may remain in play for IEEPA refunds. There is also a 90‑day window in which CBP can reliquidate on its own initiative, raising questions about whether final should be read as 90 days or 180 days — clearly, an issue that will matter a lot if your company is near those deadlines.

Data, controversy risk & financial reporting

The role of in-house tax departments in the process of getting refunds requires, for starters, giving departments access to entry‑level data showing which imports bore IEEPA tariffs between February 1, 2025, and February 28, 2026. If a business does not already have robust trade reporting, the first step is to confirm whether the business has made payments to CBP; and, if so, to work with the company’s supply chain or trade compliance teams to access ACE and run detailed entry reports for that period.

Summary entries and heavily aggregated data will be a challenge because CBP has indicated that refund claims will require a declaration in the ACE system that lists specific entries and associated IEEPA duties. Expect controversy pressure: As claims scale up, CBP resources and the courts could see backlogs. If that becomes the case, tax teams should be prepared for protests, documentation requests, and potential litigation over entitlement and timing.

On the financial reporting side, whether and when to recognize a refund depends on the strength of the legal claim and the status of the proceedings. If tariffs were listed as expenses as they were incurred, successful refunds may give rise to income recognition. In cases in which tariffs were capitalized into fixed assets, however, the accounting analysis becomes more nuanced and may implicate asset basis, depreciation, and potentially transfer pricing positions.

Coordination between an organization’s financial reporting, tax accounting, and transfer pricing specialists is critical in order that customs values, income tax treatment, and any refund‑related credits remain consistent.

Action items for corporate tax departments

Corporate tax teams do not need to become customs experts overnight, but they do need to lead a coordinated response. Practically, that means they should:

• • • confirm whether their company was an importer of record and, if so, ensure ACE access and banking information are in place now, not after CBP turns the refund system on.
    • map which entries included IEEPA tariffs, identify which are non‑liquidated or still within the 180‑day protest window, and file protests where appropriate to protect the company’s rights.
    • inventory all tariff‑sharing arrangements with suppliers, assess contractual entitlement to pass‑through refunds, and align with procurement and legal teams on a consistent recovery approach.
    • work with accounting to determine the financial statement treatment of potential refunds, including whether and when to recognize contingent assets or income and any knock‑on effects for transfer pricing and valuation.

If tax departments wait for complete certainty from the courts before acting, many entries may go final and fall out of scope. The opportunity for tariff refunds will favor companies that are data‑ready, cross‑functionally aligned, and willing to move under time pressure.

You can find out more about the changing tariff situation here

Key insights:

• • • Possibilities vs. practicality — 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 — Tax professionals have significantly accelerated the timeframe in which they expect AI to become a central part of their workflow.

    • Proactive progress — 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 Thomson Reuters 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’s tax technology is still a relatively low priority at their company.

Jump to ↓

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 “frustration gap”

In general, the report found that while many companies (especially larger ones) are actively upgrading their tax department’s 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’s 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’s 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’s 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 Thomson Reuters Institute’s here

Key takeaways:

• • • Reframe your value proposition — Translate tax achievements into business language the C-suite understands, such as protecting shareholder value, enabling growth, and mitigating risk rather than simply reporting compliance metrics.

    • Invest strategically in technology and talent — Prioritize automation and AI tools while outsourcing strategically to free internal resources for high-value strategic work that demonstrates the department’s business impact.

    • Build cross-functional partnerships — Proactively collaborate with IT, legal, operations, and HR on enterprise-wide initiatives that will position the tax function as an essential strategic partner rather than an isolated compliance department.

SAN FRANCISCO — In recently released , published by the Thomson Reuters Institute and Tax Executives Institute,Ěýa large portion of the tax department professionals surveyed expressed their desired to do more strategic work compared to simple tactical work. This was a theme we’ve seen repeatedly across our research: Tax professionals are shedding their traditional compliance-focused image and moving toward becoming strategic business partners to their organizations.

By articulating their value proposition, investing strategically in technology and talent, and aligning with broader business objectives, tax department leaders can secure the resources and influence needed to drive meaningful organizational impact.

Yet, the tax function has long been viewed as a necessary cost center — a department that ensures compliance, files returns, and manages audits — despite the essential work that in-house tax professionals do. Rarely did these professionals feel they are treated as strategic business partners. However, perception is rapidly changing, according to the insights shared at the recentĚý.

Today’s tax leaders are positioning their teams as strategic partners who provide critical insights that influence business resilience, growth strategies, and organizational risk management, conference panelists explained.

The evolving role of the tax function

Amid ongoing tax and trade policy shifts and increased business uncertainty, opportunities abound for tax professionals in corporate tax departments. Indeed, several panelists noted that the State of the Corporate Tax Department report showed that tax leaders are increasingly becoming deeply involved in strategic decisions ranging from business resilience strategy (with 63% of survey respondents saying their tax department is involved in this area) to M&A transactions (60%), organizational risk management (58%), and supply chain management (55%).

Further, CFOs are increasingly looking to their in-house tax leaders for support across multiple strategic areas, including digital transformation and AI, ESG strategy, workforce strategy, and economic resilience planning. This expanded role creates for the tax team creates both opportunities and challenges for those seeking to demonstrate their strategic value.

By articulating their value proposition, investing strategically in technology and talent, and aligning with broader business objectives, tax department leaders can secure the resources and influence needed to drive meaningful organizational impact.

In fact, one of the most pressing question tax leaders face is how to secure adequate budget funding in an environment of competing corporate priorities. The answer lies in strategic thinking about resource allocation and being intentional about having a seat at the table to better advocate for necessary investments. Tax department leaders must educate executive leadership on the risks that come with not having enough budget resources — from trying to do more with less to the potential for the company to face more exposure and risk that includes increased audits and fines.

As session panelists explained, the key is to frame discussions in terms that C-Suite leaders understand. Rather than simply requesting more resources, tax leaders should articulate how investments in the tax function can all it to better protect revenue, enable growth opportunities, and mitigate organizational risk.

Creating a value-focused identity

That articulation to management is a big step toward a tax function’s goal to move from feeling and acting like a cost center to being a strategic partner to the business. Indeed, corporate tax department leaders must change their own perceptions of how the department is perceived first — in essence, rebranding themselves and reimagining their identity. This starts with creating a compelling value story that resonates with the C-suite.

Start with creating (or recreating) a department mission statement that emphasizes value creation rather than mere compliance, aligning with broader priorities of the organization, such as business partnership and growth. Then, work to provide insights to drive decisions, and support regulatory demands while maintaining transparency.

Check out for more insight on how corporate tax professionals shift from compliance to strategic work

One practical approach is to speak the language of the C-suite by translating tax achievements into business metrics that executives care about, panelists added. For example, rather than reporting that the department completed the tax provision on time, frame it instead as the department protected $X million in shareholder value through accurate financial reporting or enabled the acquisition to close on schedule by providing timely tax due diligence.

It is also important for tax departments to track and communicate their wins consistently, panelists said, creating regular touchpoints with executive leadership to share accomplishments that position the tax function as a proactive business partner.

Navigating technology, talent, and collaboration

Technology investment represents both an opportunity and a challenge for tax departments, as the State of the Corporate Tax Department report makes clear. More than half of the respondents say they expected some increase in their budgets to invest in new tech tools over the next few years, and many indicate they plan to invest in tools and solutions to automate their workflow, especially those that support machine learning and generative AI (GenAI).

While it is great they are anticipating an increased budget, panelist explained that tax department leaders must educate management on the practical challenges of AI adoption, including the need for clean, well-structured data as a foundation.

It is also important for tax departments to track and communicate their wins consistently, creating regular touchpoints with executive leadership to share accomplishments that position the tax function as a proactive business partner.

On another point, staffing remains one of the most critical challenges facing tax departments, and many survey respondents cited hiring as key strategic priority, according to the report. Many departments will also look to technology to augment the missing talent and strategically use outsourcing and co-sourcing to alleviate talent pressure as well. And by partnering with external advisors for specialized compliance work or surge capacity during peak periods, tax departments can further free up internal resources to focus on higher-value strategic activities.

In fact, a central theme the session panelists leaned into was how the most effective tax departments build strong collaborative relationships across the organization. According to the report, 94% of CFOs and tax leaders report that the CFO helps facilitate cross-collaboration between tax and other functions such as legal, IT, operations, and finance.

Tax department leaders should proactively seek these opportunities to partner with other departments on strategic initiatives; for example, collaborating with IT on digital transformation, working with operations on supply chain optimization, partnering with legal on M&A transactions, and supporting HR on workforce strategy.

Today, the transformation of the corporate tax function from cost center to strategic partner is not merely aspirational — it is already underway in many forward-thinking organizations. As tax, audit, and trade policy become more complex and business uncertainty continues to mount, the opportunity for tax leaders to demonstrate their strategic value to the organization has never been greater.

You can downloadĚýa full copy of theĚý, from the Thomson Reuters Institute and Tax Executives Institute, here

Key takeaways:

• • • Invest in your data before adopting AI — Without clean, organized, and accessible data, AI solutions will not deliver the desired results.

    • People are the ultimate differentiator — Fostering curiosity and continuous learning are essential for tax professionals to thrive in the AI era.

    • Successful AI integration requires commitment to change — Transparent change management and a willingness to experiment can help build trust and buy-in across the tax team and the organization.

SAN FRANCISCO — As corporate tax departments continue to undergo AI-driven technology transformation, industry leaders gathered at the recent to discuss how tax professionals can successfully navigate this new era. Their insights crystallized into three essential takeaways that all corporate tax teams should consider as they embark on their AI journey.

1. Data is your new currency

The first and most critical takeaway was simple: Data is your new currency, and you must invest in it before you invest in AI. Most tax departments are starting the conversation around what AI tools they need to buy, with all the talk being about efficiencies and how AI can help. Indeed, many organizations are rushing to implement AI solutions without first ensuring that their foundational data infrastructure is sound. The result is often disappointing — garbage in, garbage out, as the old saying goes.

The tax function of the near future will face increasing demands for real-time information from tax authorities around the world. For systems and data that aren’t clean, organized, and accessible, implementing AI may not only fail to solve the problems it was employed for but possibly exacerbate them. Before deploying any AI solution, tax departments must ask themselves critical questions, including: Do we have a single source of truth for our data? Is our data structured in a way that AI can effectively process it? Can we trust the accuracy and completeness of our information?

The message is clear: You should pause before rushing into AI implementation. Audit your data landscape and identify gaps, inconsistencies, and quality issues. Invest the time and resources necessary to create a solid data foundation. This groundwork may seem tedious, but it’s absolutely essential for AI success going forward.

2. People are your differentiator

The second key takeaway addresses a common fear about AI, that it will replace human workers. The reality presented at the conference was far more nuanced and optimistic. People remain the ultimate differentiator in tax departments, but the skills that define success are evolving. Curiosity and continuous learning will separate thriving tax professionals from those who get left behind.

Conference panelists explained that AI should be viewed as a tool for augmentation, not replacement. The most successful tax departments will be those that embrace a human + machine model, on in which AI handles the repetitive, data-intensive tasks while humans focus on judgment, strategy, and relationship-building. Tax, after all, is fundamentally about social engineering — understanding not just the letter of the law, but how regulations are interpreted and applied in real-world contexts. This requires human insight, empathy, and strategic thinking that AI cannot replicate.

However, leveraging AI effectively does require a mindset shift. Tax professionals must become comfortable with technology, willing to experiment, and committed to understanding how AI tools work. This doesn’t mean everyone needs to become a data scientist, but it does mean cultivating genuine curiosity about technology and its applications.

In this way, change management emerges as crucial component in this dynamic. Building trust in AI systems requires taking baby steps and bringing your tax team along on the journey. Transparency is essential — you must explain what the AI is doing, why certain approaches were chosen, and what the limitations are. When people understand the why behind AI implementation, buy-in follows more naturally.

Leaders should focus on the process, not just the outcomes, panelists said, adding that corporate tax leaders should identify key touch points where AI can create meaningful intelligence without overwhelming the organization. Remember, it’s not about automating everything. Some processes benefit tremendously from AI; others may not. Using human judgment to guide these decisions is precisely the kind of value that distinguishes exceptional tax professionals.

As a tax leader, you should encourage your team to be curious. Create safe spaces for experimentation in which failure is seen as a learning opportunity rather than a career risk. Those tax professionals who will thrive in the AI era are those who approach new tools with enthusiasm rather than apprehension, who ask questions rather than resist change, and who see continuous learning as a professional imperative rather than an occasional activity.

3. Partnership is your strategy

The third critical takeaway recognizes that successful AI implementation within tax departments cannot happen in isolation. Partnership is your strategy, and collaboration across tax departments, IT teams, and external advisors is how organizations will scale AI responsibly and effectively.

Tax departments have traditionally operated with significant autonomy, but the AI era demands that these silos be broken down. Tax professionals bring domain expertise and understand the nuances of compliance, planning, and tax controversy. IT teams bring technical knowledge about infrastructure, security, and integration. And external advisors offer perspective on industry best practices and emerging technologies. None of these groups can successfully implement AI in the tax function without the others.

This collaborative approach should begin before any AI tool is selected. Tax, IT, and external advisors should jointly define the problem that tax leaders are trying to solve. What specific pain points does AI need to address? What does success look like? How will you measure ROI? These conversations ensure alignment and prevent the common pitfall of implementing technology in search of a problem.

Internal audit functions also play a crucial role in the AI journey, particularly regarding risk management and controls. As AI becomes more embedded in tax processes, audit teams need to understand how these systems work, what risks they introduce, and how to verify their outputs. This requires ongoing dialogue between tax and audit functions — another partnership that’s essential for responsible AI scaling.

The partnership model extends to managing relationships with tax authorities as well. As jurisdictions increasingly demand real-time data and embrace their own specific AI tools for compliance monitoring, corporate tax departments must work closely with legal and government affairs teams to understand evolving requirements and ensure that their organization’s systems can meet them.

Scaling AI responsibly means implementing appropriate governance frameworks, establishing clear accountability for AI outputs, and maintaining human oversight of critical decisions. It also means being thoughtful about which processes to automate and which to keep human driven. And perhaps most importantly, it means investing in training across all partner groups, so everyone understands their role in the AI ecosystem.

The path forward

The transformation of corporate tax through AI is not a distant future scenario — it’s happening now. Organizations that embrace these three principles — investing in data before AI, fostering an environment of curiosity and continuously learning, and building strong partnerships across organizational functions — will position themselves to thrive in this new landscape. And those that rush ahead without proper preparation or try to go it alone will likely struggle.

The message from TEI’s conference is ultimately one of optimism tempered with pragmatism. As panelists noted, AI offers tremendous potential to make tax functions more efficient, insightful, and strategic; however, realizing that potential requires thoughtful preparation, human-centered change management, and collaborative execution. The future of corporate tax is bright for those willing to do the work.

You can find out more about the work of the Tax Executives Institute here

Key takeaways:

• • • Penalties spike when resources and controls are stretched thin — Under-resourced tax departments face significantly higher penalty exposure, with nearly half reporting at least one penalty and one-in-eight experiencing fines exceeding $1 million.

    • Reactive workloads erode savings and accelerate burnout — Tax professionals spend most of their time on reactive or tactical work despite preferring a 70/30 strategic/tactical split, creating an environment in which reaction consumes planning capacity.

    • Incrementally targeted technology deliver faster returns than big-bang overhauls —Nearly 70% of tax departments remain in chaotic or reactive stages of digital maturity, with many tax professionals saying they lack confidence in their department’s ability to upgrade systems within two years.

The numbers are blunt. A large portion (44%) of respondents to the report, published by the Thomson Reuters Institute and Tax Executives Institute,Ěýsay their department had at least one penalty — and among under‑resourced tax departments, it was nearly one‑half. And one-in-eight say these fines topped $1 million.

And when it comes to technology, large portions of tax department professionals say their departments’ approach to technology is either chaotic or reactive (69%), and two‑thirds say their departments aren’t currently using generative AI (GenAI) to improve efficiency within the department.

This isn’t a skills problem — it’s a system problem.

Fortunately, as the Corporate Tax Department report showed, there are steps that corporate tax department leaders can take, including:

• • Treat penalty reduction as a board‑level KPI, tracking the number, value, and cause of penalties to better pinpoint control gaps
  • Direct a defined slice of the technology budget toward core preventives — such as data accuracy, filing automation, indirect‑tax determination, and reconciliation tools — that can cut errors before they become fines
  • Frame resource requests around real avoided‑penalty scenarios, because showing that incremental investment could have offset last year’s losses builds a more persuasive case for future funding

Ultimately, penalties and fines are data points that reflect a deeper through-put problem and solving that requires visibility at the corporate governance level, not reactive patchwork after the fact.

The reactive‑work trap that quietly kills savings

This year’s report found that tax professionals spend most of their time on reactive or tactical work, even though they say they’d prefer to see a 70/30 strategic/tactical mix. Also, nearly 60% describe their departments as under‑resourced — up from 51% a year earlier.Ěý Having an under‑resourced tax department, our research shows, can create an environment in which reaction consumes any planning and strategic work.

Indeed, the consequences of being under-resourced compound quickly. More than half of respondents from under-resourced departments say they face penalties, and many also report missing tax‑credit opportunities, delaying cross‑functional projects, and operating with less confidence in their forecasts or liability management.

Not surprisingly, burnout is another hidden cost that under-resourced departments pay daily: Tax teams that are stretch through overtime to compensate for structural and personnel shortfalls often see reduced accuracy, just when judgment is most needed.

Again, there are steps that corporate tax department leaders can take, including:

• • Establish a proactive‑time floor and mandate that each week a fixed block of time is reserved for modeling, forecasting, or credit discovery — then, measure results in saved cash or lower effective‑tax‑rates
  • Create a rapid‑triage lane for repetitive fire drills that would allow you to codify recurring crises — such as late adjustments, jurisdictional queries, or document chases — and then automate the intake so these tasks stop devouring cognitive bandwidth
  • Invest in targeted capacity, not generic headcount; adding a tax‑tech analyst or process‑automation specialist yields more lasting leverage than simply dividing the same tasks among already overworked staff

In much of this, the bigger insight is cultural: Reclaimed time is reclaimed value. Every hour shifted from reactive compliance to predictive analysis strengthens your tax department’s compliance posture.

Tech hesitation is expensive, while smaller faster wins matter more

As the report shows, almost 70% of respondents say their tax departments are still in the chaotic or reactive stages of digital maturity, and barely 6% operate optimally. Further, nearly 60% of respondents say they lack confidence in their ability to upgrade systems within the next two years. This correlation between reactive approaches and technological stagnation can feed directly into a department seeing increased penalties and an overreliance on manual processes.

Interestingly, corporate tax departments in smaller organizations, those with less than $50 million in annual revenue, and those from very large organizations, with more than $5 billion in annual revenue, are outpacing their midsize peers when it comes to technology purchases and integration. In fact, these two groups — at opposite ends of the market — are more likely to secure leadership buy‑in, tap external vendors for automation, and climb faster toward proactive operations.

Of course, GenAI sits on the cusp of this changing that trajectory. More than half (57%) of respondents say their tax departments are implementing new technology this year, including GenAI-driven tools. And those departments that are, mainly are using it for research, summarization, and document drafting, rather than more complex integrated tax analytics. However, without a reliable tax data spine — clean, centralized, and accessible data — even the smartest model can’t deliver true automation or insight.

Still, as the report outlines, there are actions that tax department leaders can take now to boost their department’s tech prowess, including:

• • Prioritize ´Ú˛ą˛őłŮ‑R°ż±ő automations, such as indirect‑tax determination, e‑invoicing compliance, tax‑provision close tasks, and certificate management. These are proven areas in which automation immediately cuts cycle times and penalty exposure
  • Pair early GenAI pilots with structured data. For example, start with narrow copilots for research or variance explanation, but feed them curated internal data to evolve beyond guesswork and toward data-driven decisions
  • Borrow capacity intentionally and partner with third‑party automation specialists for discrete projects using a build‑operate‑transfer model. This way, internal teams inherit sustainable, well‑documented workflows rather than black‑box solutions.

Waiting for a full replacement of the organization’s enterprise resource planning system or a perfect end‑to‑end tech stack actually can trap departments in perpetual backlog. Incremental wins, particularly those tied directly to penalty reduction or labor savings, can build the momentum and political capital needed to make the case for proper resourcing for larger transformations.

The recent 2025 State of the Corporate Tax Department report reveals a powerful connection between resource allocation and tax department performance: Under-resourcing perpetuates penalties and reactive workflows that can only be broken by shifting to proactive systems and automation.

For tax department leaders, the imperative is clear — invest in prevention, reclaim strategic time, and modernize incrementally, because true progress comes not from doing more, but from choosing fewer priorities and executing on those select ones with excellence.

You can downloadĚýa full copy of the , from the Thomson Reuters Institute and Tax Executives Institute, here

Key takeaways:

• • • Tax requirements have become more complex — The 2025 R&D credit reporting requirements have become significantly more complicated, demanding detailed business component and expense breakdowns.

    • AI may offer solutions — AI-driven platforms that are aligned with new IRS expectations can offer practical solutions to strengthen substantiation, simplify technical narratives, and ease the documentation burden.

    • Pre-planning and preparation are key — Proactive audit preparation, strategic communication, and awareness of recent IRS procedural changes are critical for successful resolution of R&D examinations.

This year marks a milestone for the corporate tax community as the tax code’s Section G Research & Development credit reporting enters the mandatory phase for returns exceeding $1.5 million in qualified research expenses or $15 million in gross receipts. Formerly, taxpayers faced little more than two simple fields on — now, however, filers must provide granular detail at the business component level.

These new requirements include breaking out employee expenses (direct, supervisory, and support), and separating additional qualified categories like supplies, computer leasing, and contract research for every component. The new requirements mirror global trends seen in countries such as Germany and France, where R&D credit documentation has historically been much more burdensome.

How documentation has changed

Historically in the United States, many aspects of R&D substantiation were included in the study and not presented on the tax form itself. In June 2024, the IRS released a revised draft of Form 6765 — and provided — that included the updated stance demanding transparency. Wherein every business component, its relation to controlled groups, the type of component, and the wage/expense breakdown must be represented on the tax return. The implication is clear: Taxpayers must bolster their documentation, ensuring contemporaneous evidence that is not solely prepared for tax purposes.

Compared to many foreign jurisdictions, especially those in Europe, the US still offers relatively less burdensome requirements; however, this directional shift is unmistakable. Complex, technical project narratives and granular wage allocation are increasingly expected by US tax authorities. The IRS indicates that it presumed all filers already performed this granular breakdown. Now, the reporting burden moves from optional best practice to taxable necessity.

Shifting audit terrain

In a , presented by ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę and Tax Executives Institute, panelists also discussed audit shifts. Indeed, 2025 brings procedural shifts within the IRS’s audit playbook. Notably, the elimination of the agreement of facts process at the conclusion of Large Business & International audits in early 2026 removes a formal avenue that filers can use to respond to the IRS’s versions of events before the Notice of Proposed Adjustment is issued. This heightens the importance of detailed, factual Information Document Request (IDR) responses throughout the entire audit, ensuring a well-documented appeals record if needed.

Additionally, tools like the Accelerated Issue Resolution (AIR) and Fast Track Settlement programs are expanding. These initiatives streamline multi-year disputes and improve the odds of reaching taxpayer-favorable outcomes, particularly as IRS management and appeals officers seek more efficient, resource-aware resolutions. Recent experience shows a trend: Fast Track settlements are securing more positive outcomes for taxpayers — sometimes even when the parties are far apart on the numbers.

State audits add their own complexity, especially because many states don’t recognize federal Accounting Standard Codification 730 directives. Tax departments must proactively develop full substantiation for state reviews, rather than relying solely on federal documentation standards or shortcuts. Partnering with audit-experienced professionals, especially those with IRS backgrounds, can further improves audit results.

Turning burden into benefit

The new mandates from Section G are not a signal to retreat from claiming the credit. Despite elevated standards, the credit remains a vital incentive for businesses. Rather than being deterred, corporate tax departments can use this to bolster their requests for more technology investment, including AI-driven tools and solutions.

The arrival of advanced generative AI (GenAI) models makes R&D credit substantiation faster and more precise than ever before. These tools have capabilities that include:

• • • Ingesting and organizing vast quantities of technical and operational documentation into IRS-compliant formats
    • Translating technical jargon into tax-speak, ensuring that every business component gets a concise, accurate, and compliant technical narrative
    • Assisting in quantifying R&D time at the individual level, mapping granular time and activities to precise expense categories
    • Generating contemporaneous documentation referenced directly to underlying evidence or regulatory authority for bulletproof

Corporate tax professionals also can take tedious and manual tasks —Ěý such as interviewing engineers, mapping activities, and defending allocations — and now use AI to manage this work at scale. Real-time views of qualified R&D activity, lessened reliance on labor-intensive surveys, and immediate provisioning all contribute to faster, more rigorous studies, bigger credits, easier audits, and happier R&D teams.

Preparing for 2025 returns and beyond

There are several actions that corporate tax teams can take now to prepare for 2025 returns, including:

• • • Embrace AI and contemporary documentation workflows to meet new substantiation and reporting burdens
    • Build IDR responses, audit narratives, and documentation as if they will be reviewed in appeals or in court — precision and completeness are paramount
    • Cultivate constructive auditor relationships, whether federal or state, with a mindset focused on problem-solving rather than confrontation
    • Consider Fast Track and AIR strategies for accelerated and possibly more favorable dispute resolution in multi-year credit audits
    • Continually monitor IRS and state developments, regulatory guidance, and prominent cases as precedents shift norms and expectations.

R&D credit compliance has evolved from simple reporting to sophisticated, data-driven substantiation. With increased detail required for every dollar claimed, corporate tax departments must adapt quickly.

They now need to be leveraging advanced technology, have subject matter expertise, and create more transparent auditor relationships. Having AI-powered tools is a necessity to making more accurate credits and smoother audits a tangible reality. The bottom line is that R&D credits are valuable and corporate tax department teams will now need to invest time and expertise to get them right.

You can find more about how tax professionals are planning for future tax changes here

Key takeaways:

• • • Automation is a top priority, but progress is slow — 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 — 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 — 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’t 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 Thomson Reuters 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’s 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’s technology and automation usage as chaotic or reactive — only slightly better than in last year’s report.

This skeptical view towards their tax department’s 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 Ěýtheir 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 — either from the rest of the business or from third parties — 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’s 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’s 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 Thomson Reuters 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’s 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’s 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’s 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 Thomson Reuters Institute and Tax Executives Institute, here

Key findings:

• • • Tax departments gaining strategic relevance — Corporate tax departments are gradually gaining more strategic relevance within their organizations; however, their efforts to move beyond traditional compliance roles are often hindered by competing priorities, tight budgets, a chronic talent shortage, and the challenges of upgrading to new technologies.

    • Departments cite top priorities — The top priorities for tax leaders in 2025 include improving tax compliance accuracy, navigating uncertainty, keeping up with new tax legislation, adding tax technology tools, and automating more processes to counter what many see as a lack of resources and qualified staff.

    • Adoption of new technologies is key — The adoption of new technology solutions, including automation and AI, is on the rise. While many companies are still transitioning from legacy tech systems, a significant number of tax departments plan to introduce more technology and automation in the coming year.

Corporate tax departments have been trying for years to move beyond what many in upper management see as simply a compliance role. Now, tax function leaders are seeking to redefine their departments as a source of more strategic, proactive intelligence that can add value to their organizations. New tax technologies, automation, and more centralized data management have certainly given tax departments the means to become more strategically relevant, but progress toward that goal has been slower than many expected.

Indeed, according to theĚý, published by the Thomson Reuters Institute and Tax Executives Institute, many well-intentioned corporate tax departments are still navigating through a familiar maze of organizational obstacles, including tight budgets, a chronic talent shortage, and the challenges of upgrading — and adapting to — new technologies and systems.

In addition to various internal struggles, the report also explores how the volatility and unpredictability of today’s political environment is affecting tax leaders at some of the largest companies in the world.

Priorities and challenges

The report surveyed more than 250 senior decision-makers in corporate tax departments worldwide to gain insight into tax department leaders’ strategic priorities and most pressing challenges, as well as their views on technology, resources, budget, and staffing.

According to the report, tax leaders’ top priorities have not changed much in the past few years, with this year’s top priorities including: tax compliance, tax planning and strategy, keeping up with new tax legislation, adding tax technology tools, and automating more processes.

Not surprisingly, survey respondents cited numerous challenges to achieving these priority goals. And while familiar challenges — such a chronic talent shortage and ever-changing regulations continued to make the list — one factor vaulted to the top this year, navigating the market uncertainty caused by shifting political alliances, fluctuating tariffs, and changes to the United States tax code.

The report emphasizes that uncertainty about tariffs, trade routes, tax regulations, filing rules, and supply-chain security has emerged as a major concern. This is especially true for tax professionals within large multinational corporations, whose departments are currently engaged in an urgent push to understand how these complex geopolitical factors might impact their respective enterprises around the world and what they can do about it.

Also not surprisingly, another top challenge was managing digital transformation, which includes the complex process of implementing new systems, tools, and processes, including automation and AI. According to the report, a majority of tax professionals say their companies (70%) are still navigating the transition from legacy systems and processes to more centralized, automated systems that give departments the time and tools they need to engage in more proactive tax management.

While adoption of new technologies is on the rise, more than half of this year’s survey respondents say their departments plan to introduce more technology and automation in the coming year with more than half saying their department’s new technology would include generative AI.

Moving toward a more strategic and proactive stance

Another major theme explored in the report is the ongoing effort by tax professionals to do less tactical or reactive compliance work and more strategic and proactive data analysis and forecasting. Currently, tax professionals say they are spending more than half their time on tactical and reactive work but would prefer to spend less.

This desire to spend more time mining business intelligence from tax data has been on many tax departments’ wish list for several years. In most cases, however, a department’s ability to free up its tax professionals to devote more time to proactive pursuits is directly tied to the available resources. Yet, resource scarcity continues to be a thorn in the side of many departments, with 58% of respondents claiming that their department is under-resourced, up from 51% in 2024.

To address their resourcing issues, many departments are pursuing a three-pronged strategy, the report notes, that includes incorporating new technologies, hiring more qualified tax professionals, and outsourcing a portion of routine compliance and audit functions.

Interestingly, the report reveals that the tax professionals most likely to report that their departments are not under-resourced are those from smaller companies (those with less than $50 million in annual revenue) and larger companies (those with more than $1 billion in annual revenue).

Meanwhile, midsize companies are the ones most likely to struggle with resourcing issues, the report shows, due mainly to less robust budgets, complex infrastructure issues, and something of a wait-and-see attitude toward adopting more advanced automated technologies. However, the report also notes that many midsize companies are also in the midst of technological transitions that should put them in a more advantageous position within the next year or two.

You can downloadĚýa full copy of the , from the Thomson Reuters Institute and Tax Executives Institute, here

Corporate tax departments are undergoing digital transformations at what some might say is warp speed. In some cases, it may feel to in-house tax teams like it’s a never-ending journey, especially over the last few years with the introduction of generative AI (GenAI). Indeed, GenAI has ushered in an age of unprecedented opportunities that promises more efficiency and insight.

At the same time, however, more fully embracing digital transformation has brought with it a level of disruption that at time can be lengthy, unclear, or constantly changing can have an unintended side effect on corporate tax professionals: transformation fatigue.

At a recent tax technology seminar sponsored by , leading experts weighed in on the importance of properly managing this level of change as a central component to any digital transformation. However, team leaders must be watchful for transformation fatigue among their team members, panelists cautioned. Transformation fatigue can be described as situations in which teams become overwhelmed or disengaged due to the sheer volume and frequency of change.

In addition to the mental and sometimes physical toll such continuous change can have on employees, this fatigue can stall even the most promising tax technology projects. As panelists pointed out, tax department leaders need to be aware of this disruptive challenge and should strategically plan to mitigate the damage or stop it from occurring all together.

The cost of continuous change

Transformation fatigue is particularly acute in corporate tax functions in which high-stakes deliverables, tight deadlines, and regulatory scrutiny are the norm. Layering change initiatives on top of already demanding or overwhelming responsibilities can erode morale and hinder adoption. Symptoms of this fatigue might include resistance to new systems, decreased productivity, or even employee burnout.

It’s no surprise that technology’s rapid evolution means there’s often little time to fully adopt one tool before the next is introduced. For example, a team might still be mastering a new tax data platform when leadership rolls out an AI-driven analytics tool. Without proper change management, this can feel less like innovation and more like disruption.

The very nature of tax work requires professionals to keep pace with shifting regulations while rapidly interpreting what they mean for their organization’s business and industry. In fact, many tax professionals said they often feel they don’t have enough time to get their work done, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute’s report. Thus, with their bandwidth already stretched, tax department leaders may see continuous tech rollouts resulting in slower adoption and inadequate use. Rapid and constant change, especially without adequate support, can feel unsettling.

Intentional and adaptive leadership is key

So how can tax department leaders help their teams stay energized and engaged through a phase of continual transformation? It starts with taking steps that show leaders are being both intentional and adaptive, such as:

Communicate the “Why” behind every change — Team members are more likely to embrace new tools and processes when they understand the purpose. Is a new platform intended to reduce manual effort? Improve audit readiness? Support global compliance? Leaders must articulate these goals clearly — and repeat them often.

Celebrate small wins — Change is a journey, and morale depends on recognizing progress along the way. Did the new automation process reduce month-end close time by 10%? Celebrate that. Acknowledging incremental improvements with the team reinforces momentum and encourages further adoption.

Provide ample training and support — Training cannot be an after-thought. Whether through formal sessions, peer mentoring, or just-in-time learning, corporate tax teams need hands-on support to get comfortable with new tools. Ongoing access to help — via IT, vendors, or internal champions — ensures that teams don’t feel stranded.

Set realistic expectations — Not every tech rollout will yield instant ROI. Not every tool will be perfect on day one. Leaders must set a realistic timeline for value realization and avoid overpromising. Teams that are given space to learn and adapt will deliver better results over time.

Embrace iteration — A mindset of continuous improvement is crucial. Encourage feedback loops in which team members can share what’s working and what’s not. Adjusting course based on user input not only improves outcomes, but it also signals to the team that they are being heard — and people are more willing to participate if they feel they are heard.

Culture & technology: Building a department that embraces change

Managing transformation fatigue isn’t just about surviving each new tech tool rollout — it’s about creating and maintaining a work environment that sees change as an opportunity, not a threat to the way work is done nor a disruption to current operations.

Start by integrating change readiness into your team’s DNA. This could mean appointing change champions within the tax function who model adaptability and enthusiasm. It could involve regular check-ins to discuss how any new technology tools and solutions are affecting workloads and workflows. It may also mean creating structured space for innovation, such as monthly tech sprints or pilot projects that explore emerging solutions in a low-risk environment.

Creating trust is also important. Employees are more likely to lean into change when they believe leadership has their best interests in mind. Transparent communication, visible support from leadership, and follow-through on commitments go a long way in fostering trust.

Remind team members that technology is a means to an end, and that gaining efficiencies through continuous use of new tools is best for the overall organization, the tax department, and the individuals who make up the team. This means aligning tech investments with the organization’s own strategic goals, empowering teams to work smarter, and using data-driven insights to drive value across the enterprise.

When transformation is managed well, corporate tax teams can spend less time on manual processes and more time on strategic analysis. They can identify trends, mitigate risks, and provide the insights that senior leadership craves. This only happens, however, when change fatigue is addressed head-on and team members’ well-being is prioritized.

As the tax landscape continues to evolve, transformation is inevitable — fatigue, however, doesn’t have to be. With the right leadership approach, tax professionals will not just endure change but instead embrace and lean into it. By investing in people as much as technology, celebrating progress, and maintaining a clear focus on purpose, corporate tax leaders can transform fatigue into fuel for innovation.

You can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s most recentĚýĚýhere