Enjoy our library of free downloadable content includes white papers, webinars, product guides, case studies, industry analysis and much more, provided by experts and vendors within the accounting profession. 

Membership

CPE & Events

Advocacy

What's Happening

Become a CPA

Header

Voting for the new community engagement and governance models is open through March 3. 

 update your Membership Auto-Renewal payment method

Your go-to source for expert insights, industry updates, and exclusive CalCPA content. Stay ahead with practical guidance, pro tips, and must-know trends—all designed to fuel your success.

Stay ahead with essential CPA resources

CalCPA to DOE: Recognize Accounting as a Professional Degree

CalCPA has joined the AICPA and a national coalition requesting the DOE revise its graduate loan proposal and recognize accounting as a professional degree.

Shaping the Future of the CPA Profession

In this Q&A from CalCPA Council, CBA Executive Officer Dominic Franzella talks about top issues facing the profession—from AI to private equity to new licensure models.

PCC Update: Recent Progress on Agenda Priorities

Discover how private-company accounting challenges are being addressed and what’s on deck for 2026.

AI-First Finance Function

As AI transforms how finance teams operate, organizations must move past their fear of risk and embrace an experimental mindset, be willing to try new approaches and treat AI as more than just another tool.

Golden State wisdom straight from the experts

Professional Interest Areas

Accounting & Finance

Audit & Assurance

Business & Firm Management

Business & Industry

Client Advisory Services (CAS)

Estate & Trust Planning

Forensic Services

Government

International

Not-for-Profit

Personal Financial Planning

Professional Development

Technology

Morning coffee and curated news?  Get the top headlines and information to keep you ahead in the business world..

Daily Clips newsletter

Rise & Stride Podcast

brainfood bytes

Listen and watch...

Looking for an old article or a past issue from California CPA magazine? You're in the right spot!

Part articles and archives

CPAs: Making Sense of What Comes Next campaign

 to the U.S. Department of Education urging the agency to recognize accounting as a professional degree program. This designation directly affects federal student loan limits for graduate students pursuing CPA licensure.

The Department’s proposed rule, issued under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, sets new federal student loan limits for graduate students. Under the proposal, students enrolled in designated professional programs could borrow up to $50,000 per year, with a $200,000 lifetime cap. Students outside that designation, including accounting students as currently written, would be limited to $20,500 annually and $100,000 over a lifetime.

For many aspiring CPAs, especially those pursuing additional education to advance their careers or meet licensure requirements, that difference is significant. At a time when the profession is focused on strengthening the CPA pipeline, limiting access to graduate level financing could create unnecessary financial barriers.

In its comment letter, CalCPA made two primary requests: 

Our comments emphasized that accounting is a licensed and regulated profession built on rigorous education, examination, ethics and competency standards. Students pursuing CPA licensure should have equitable access to graduate level financing consistent with other recognized professional programs.

CalCPA’s advocacy is part of a coordinated national effort with the AICPA and other stakeholders. The AICPA and all state CPA societies have issued joint statements and letters to the Department. In addition, a coalition of eight accounting organizations representing approximately 1.5 million accounting and finance professionals has also called on the Department to revise the rule.

CPA licensure is not a general credential. It is a state regulated process requiring advanced education, specialized training, ethics standards and ongoing professional development. CPAs protect investors, businesses, government agencies and the public by ensuring the integrity of financial information. Failing to recognize accounting as a professional degree would limit access to fair financing for students and could weaken the long-term strength of a profession that California’s economy and communities depend on every day.

The public comment period closes March 2, 2026. CalCPA will continue engaging with policymakers to ensure accounting students are treated fairly and that the CPA pipeline remains strong. We will keep members informed as this process moves forward.

Few people have a better vantage point on the sweeping changes reshaping the CPA profession than Dominic Franzella. As executive officer of the California Board of Accountancy, Franzella sits at the intersection of regulatory policy, consumer protection and professional standards. 

In a conversation with CalCPA President & CEO Denise LeDuc Froemming at the recent CalCPA Council meeting, Franzella addressed some of the most pressing topics facing the profession, including new licensure pathways, private equity in accounting and AI. 

Q: Now that AB 1175 passed, what comes next and how can CPAs, students and firms prepare?

 of how aspiring CPAs in California can earn their license. The new pathways officially open on Jan. 1, 2027, and the CBA is working on a roughly 12-month runway to get everything in place. “The board is finalizing the regulations, the underlying specifics from the legislation, and we hope to have those regulations in place by Oct. 1 so there's a little bit more runway for people to be able to see what it's going to look like.”

Following the start of the new pathway, there will be a two-year transition period, both legacy and new pathways will coexist, and the CBA plans to open its degree and certification recognition process for schools to begin applying in early October, which will add another element to fast-track the verification of education requirements. For CPAs and firms, staying current on these timelines will be critical to advising staff navigating these changes.

Q: Private equity is increasingly entering the accounting profession. How is the CBA approaching this shift and what should CPAs and firms know?

: “The question for us is how can we create a regulatory framework that ensures that CPAs are in charge of the decision-making process of those firms, and not having undue influence created as a result of some of the investments from private equity.”

Franzella, who serves on the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy Private Equity Task Force, noted that private equity can bring meaningful capital infusions that allow firms to invest in technology—including AI—and other modernizations. But the CBA's primary lens is consumer protection, with a focus on ensuring that CPA firms maintain independence both in fact and in appearance, even when non-CPA investors are involved.

One particularly concern Franzella addressed is that some private equity-backed firms have reportedly discouraged professionals from using their CPA title. Franzella called this deeply troubling for those who have worked hard to earn the designation and signaled that modernizing the regulatory provisions around the CPA title is a priority. 

Q: How is the CBA thinking about AI and what should CPAs understand about their obligations when using it?

: “We want to make sure consumers are getting reliable information and protected appropriately, and that CPAs are using AI with the appropriate professional skepticism that is required and necessary.”

Franzella said the CBA’s focus is not on advocating for or against AI adoption, but on understanding its impact across all firm sizes and ensuring consumer protections keep pace. He noted the Boards of Accountancy have also been tracking proposed state legislation around AI auditing, working alongside CalCPA to educate both the Board and legislators on how the profession is currently approaching AI. For CPAs, the message is clear: AI is a tool that demands the same professional rigor and skepticism as any other.

Q: What changes are coming to continuing professional education (CPE) requirements, and how will they affect licensees?

: “The technologies and methodologies that can be delivered are advancing faster than our regulations could handle the changes. We're really trying to shift the focus from the how it's delivered to more of the quality and content that's being delivered.”

The CBA has been working on reforming how CPE is delivered and evaluated, as well as reconsidering the total hours required. Rulemaking to modernize CPE delivery is expected by fall, with implementation potentially in 2026 or 2027. 

The board has moved to a self-certification model for CPE compliance to help streamline the renewal process, which has been well-received, and anticipates expanding the number of CPE audits to ensure compliance. 

“I don't think it's going to look fundamentally different,” Franzella said. “The shift now will be instead of looking at did you report correctly, we're going to be more focused on did you actually complete the area.”

Franzella explained that enforcement is evolving in two significant ways. First, with the shift to CPE self-certification, the CBA is moving from verifying whether licensees correctly reported their hours to verifying whether they completed them. 

That means an increase in audits with Franzella indicating the number could jump from roughly 100–200 per month historically to as many as 5,000 per year, with a risk-based approach targeting prior violators.

Q: What enforcement priorities should CPAs and firms be aware of going into this year?

: “We're really spending these next few months trying to safeguard consumers from unlicensed activity, either from people who are truly unlicensed or from CPAs who have allowed their license to go delinquent or expire and continue to practice without completing the continuing education.”

As the board is sharpening its focus on unlicensed activity, for firms, this signals the importance of internal compliance tracking and renewal reminder systems. Clients, too, should be aware that verifying a CPA's active license status is an important part of due diligence.

Celebrating 125 Years of Consumer Protection

The conversation closed on a milestone note: 2026 marks the 

125th anniversary of California's CPA profession

. The CBA has partnered with CalCPA to commemorate the occasion, with Sen. Roger Niello introducing a Legislative resolution, SCR 111. Throughout the year, the CBA will release special features tracing the profession and the board's evolution and is producing a video highlighting its long history of consumer protection.

“We're going to take this year to really show what it means to be a CPA, what it means to be regulating this community, and how consumers are benefited from the roles that CPAs play,” Franzella said.

Established by the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) in 2012, the 

 advises the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) on private company financial accounting and reporting issues and evaluates accounting standards for private company alternatives.

The PCC’s membership includes users of private company financial statements, including sureties, banks, lessors and other creditors; controllers, CFOs and other accounting-related personnel who regularly produce financial statements; and CPAs who provide audit and other forms of assurance on financial statements. 

During its most recent meeting in December, the PCC discussed three current research projects:

There is ongoing research to determine whether there are opportunities to further simplify the guidance on leases for private companies. The PCC has a leases working group comprised of PCC members and members of the AICPA’s Technical Issues Committee (TIC). The working group is researching challenges that smaller private company lessees, in particular, are facing to see if there are ways to help address those challenges.

PCC members provided input on several areas being researched from a lessee perspective, including:

PCC members encouraged the working group to continue to research certain areas for private company simplification and expressed the need to conduct further outreach with private company stakeholders.

Subjective Acceleration Clauses and Debt Disclosures

Members also discussed the staff’s research on subjective acceleration clauses, which are prevalent in many private company debt arrangements, and influence whether debt is classified as a current or noncurrent liability in a classified balance sheet. The PCC is exploring how to reduce the complexity in applying the guidance and more closely align the guidance with lender practices. There was conversation, too, as to whether the scope of a potential project should include debt disclosures and whether those disclosures should narrowly focus on subjective acceleration clauses or be broader. The PCC indicated that it would work toward decision on whether to add a project to its agenda during an upcoming PCC meeting.

In this area, the PCC is looking at certain areas of guidance that may be appropriate for simplification for private companies. PCC members discussed key takeaways from a November working group meeting, recent feedback from various private company stakeholders and supported the working group’s plan to develop specific alternatives on the debt modification and extinguishments and troubled debt restructuring guidance and solicit feedback on those alternatives.

The PCC also advised the FASB on several FASB projects including Classification of Certain Digital Assets as Cash Equivalents, Accounting for Transfers of Crypto Assets, and Equity Method of Accounting. The PCC discussed private company implementation and ongoing application of the credit losses guidance in connection with the FASB’s Post-Implementation Review on that topic. 

The next PCC meeting is scheduled for March 3 and the group  PCC has several liaison meetings planned for the first quarter of 2026 with private company stakeholder groups, including users, preparers and practitioners..

The PCC is most effective when stakeholders such as, CPAs, provide feedback on our activities. More information about our work and how to get invoved is available by 

 and in the PCC's forthcoming 2025 Annual Report, which will talk about the accomplishments of the past year and look ahead to future PCC activities. Comments on any private company financial reporting issue or other feedback can be submitted via the 

The views expressed in this article are those of the author only. Official positions of the PCC and the FASB on accounting matters are determined only after extensive public due process and deliberation.

Finance sits at the heart of every organization. It touches nearly every department and external stakeholders, providing a 360-degree view of operations. Keeping up with this wide-ranging responsibility takes substantial effort. There's a constant flow of data to manage, regulatory deadlines to meet and major business decisions that need solid analytical backing. 

Artificial Intelligence is now transforming how finance teams operate. While traditional software follows rigid rules, AI is different: It can reason, recognize patterns and integrate directly with ERP systems, spreadsheets and communication tools that teams already use. For finance professionals, AI marks a shift from processing transactions to overseeing intelligent systems. This change requires an investment in new technology and a willingness to evolve professionally.

AI's impact on finance comes down to two main factors that reinforce each other: people becoming dramatically more productive with their individual tasks and entire business processes being automated.

AI enhances individual output by automating routine office work, drafting communications, creating presentations, synthesizing meeting notes and conducting research. Modern AI serves as both an analytical partner and a coaching tool. Junior staff can upskill faster, and senior professionals can delegate more effectively.

The productivity gains are substantial. Tasks that previously required hours, such as preparing variance analyses, drafting board materials or researching accounting guidance, can now be completed in minutes. The result? Finance professionals can spend less time crunching data and more time advising on strategy.

Beyond individual productivity, AI enables the automation of entire workflows across multiple roles within the finance function and across other departments. The following areas represent processes where AI can reliably automate thousands of tasks with minimal human intervention:

To realize AI's full potential, organizations must implement three foundational capabilities that work together as an integrated system.

: iPaaS (Integration Platform as a Service) tools serve as the digital plumbing that connects software systems across an organization. These platforms move data reliably and predictably, syncing payment information from your ERP to a dashboard, kicking off approval workflows, or updating records across systems without manual intervention.

This automation layer forms the essential foundation. Without reliable data pipelines feeding into them, AI systems simply can't make intelligent decisions.

: Built on top of workflow automation, AI agents serve as intelligent actors that retrieve information, execute tasks and handle end-to-end activities with minimal human intervention. These agents can act as a concierge (answering questions about financial data), an assistant (preparing specific deliverables) or an autonomous coworker (managing entire processes, such as invoice approval).

Multi-agent systems can surface increasingly sophisticated insights, catching early warning signs that would be nearly impossible to spot manually.

: AI agents require clear instructions to operate effectively. Rather than doing repetitive work themselves, finance teams guide agents by providing SOPs, policy documents, regulatory requirements and decision rules to follow. Organizations that document their processes, spell out the rules, and track exceptions tend to implement AI faster and achieve better results than those trying to automate workflows that were never documented. Interestingly, AI can also help close documentation gaps quickly.

Organizations have three primary paths to AI implementation, each suited to different needs and capabilities:

: Specialized AI tools automate individual steps in a process. An intelligent document processing tool, for instance, can read an incoming invoice, extract the line items and prepare a data entry for the accounting system. These solutions offer quick implementation and immediate ROI but address only discrete tasks rather than end-to-end workflows.

: Specialized AI automation platforms for finance, such as Hyperbots, offer co-pilot solutions that can handle multiple financial processes end-to-end and integrate with accounting and other systems. These products use multi-agent systems and sophisticated agent memory databases to automate entire processes, such as procure-to-pay, rather than just individual steps. Human involvement shifts from moving data between systems to resolving exceptions and validating outputs. 

When evaluating these products, consider how well they integrate with your existing stack, which security certifications they hold and whether the vendor has a clear plan to keep up with AI advances.

: No-code enterprise AI platforms, such as Workato, enable business users to build custom automations without programming expertise. 

One company has built a conversational agent that tracks contract approval status and follows up with relevant people via chat when there are delays, giving managers the opportunity to approve via chat. Another agent allows anyone to request a subscription and receive instant approval. The same agent then tracks the user's logins to the software application and, when the user is no longer using it, suggests canceling their subscription.

Some organizations now treat no-code proficiency as a core skill, on par with Excel spreadsheet competency, and train employees across departments to build their own productivity automations.

An AI implementation strategy should align with an organization's size and technical sophistication. The primary decision is whether to build an internal AI operations capability or leverage external providers.

: Organizations without dedicated finance teams should prioritize finding AI-first accounting firms. Due diligence should evaluate technological sophistication rather than pure competency, ensuring the provider delivers automation-driven cost reductions and analytical insights traditionally reserved for larger enterprises.

: These organizations maintain internal finance teams for critical functions while leveraging specialty firms for complementary expertise. The recommended approach is to select a comprehensive AI software product for finance process automation while enabling internal teams to build custom solutions using no-code platforms. Mid-size organizations typically lack the scale to justify custom AI development but have sufficient complexity to benefit from integrated solutions beyond point tools.

: Global organizations require a top-down culture that positions AI as a means of professional empowerment, supported by deliberate change management. These enterprises should evaluate AI-first business process outsourcing (BPO) providers for standardized processes, while building custom implementations to differentiate. Internal teams can leverage no-code platforms for departmental automations, while enterprise architecture teams establish governance frameworks and integration standards.

: AI adoption is reshaping the business model of finance and accounting service providers. Firms that embrace automation are transitioning from labor-based billing to outcome-based pricing, offering defined deliverables at fixed fees rather than charging by the hour for manual work.

This transformation is visible across the small-firm landscape, where practitioners are deploying "agentic" workflows to bypass the traditional constraints of headcount. For a monthly software overhead of approximately $100 to $500, a solo firm in 2026 can now deploy platforms like Digits AGL or Docyt AI to act as "Digital Associates." These agents perform 24/7 autonomous reconciliation with 99 percent accuracy, compared to the 10 percent-15 percent error rate typical of manual entry.

The economic feasibility of this shift is significant: by automating 60 percent–70 percent of repetitive data ingestion, a solo practitioner can increase their capacity by roughly 55 percent without adding staff. This allows the firm to move from a $150/hour rate to a "Virtual CFO" package priced at a flat $2,500 monthly premium. At this scale, 2026 benchmarks show that AI-mature small firms are achieving a revenue-per-employee target of $250,000 to $400,000, effectively capturing the "efficiency surplus" as pure profit rather than passing it to the client as reduced billable hours.

This shift creates structural advantages. AI-first firms can serve more clients with fewer staff, deliver faster turnaround on recurring work, and redirect senior talent toward advisory services that command premium fees. Firms that delay AI adoption risk losing clients to providers offering equivalent services at lower cost with faster delivery.

Because finance handles sensitive data, security forms the non-negotiable foundation of any AI strategy.

: Ensure proprietary information is never used to train public AI models. Evaluate vendor data handling policies and contractual protections.

: Deploy AI within private cloud environments that maintain SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001 compliance. Verify certification status and audit reports.

: Maintain human-in-the-loop validation processes to ensure every AI-generated transaction or report is accompanied by documented accountability. Preserve decision trails for regulatory review.

Success in AI adoption depends more on execution strategy than technology selection. A phased approach reduces risk while building organizational capability:

Throughout implementation, avoid solutions that lack flexibility to evolve with rapid AI advancement. Every step should move the organization toward a model in which technology handles volume and professionals handle judgment.

We're seeing a fundamental shift in how finance operates: AI is becoming the primary engine for processing financial information, while legacy systems are shifting to a supporting role as record-keepers. In this emerging model, AI agents—increasingly characterized in literature as "Digital Seniors"—execute multi-step cognitive workflows that were once the exclusive domain of junior professional staff.

This doesn't mean finance professionals are becoming obsolete. Their role is shifting toward serving as a "human-in-the-loop" supervisor, guiding AI systems and ensuring algorithmic integrity, upholding ethical standards and providing strategic judgment that remains beyond the current capabilities of AI applications. Data from 2026 confirms the viability of this model: firms that have successfully integrated these systems have recorded a 23 percent increase in revenue per employee, driven by the automation of approximately 74 percent of billable manual tasks.

Crucially, the accessibility of these "agentic" solutions has lowered the barrier to entry, allowing small and solo firms to compete with larger enterprises on the basis of analytical velocity rather than headcount. The primary obstacle to adoption is no longer technical or financial, but cultural. Organizations need to move past their fear of risk and embrace a more experimental mindset, one that is willing to try new approaches. When firms treat AI as collaborative infrastructure rather than just another tool, they can break the link between growth and headcount, empowering their people to focus on the strategic challenges that require human judgment. 

Large capital projects—particularly in construction, infrastructure, energy and public-sector development—carry inherent financial, operational and compliance risks. When these projects experience significant cost overruns, delays, or allegations of fraud, waste or abuse, scrutiny quickly shifts from project execution to governance and oversight. 

For CPAs providing audit and attestation services to project owners or general contractors, these situations often trigger a familiar and uncomfortable question from boards, regulators and litigators alike: “Where were the auditors?”

Understanding how fraud and compliance risks manifest in large capital projects—and how those risks intersect with audit responsibilities—is critical for CPAs charged with providing assurance over financial statements that include significant project-related balances, estimates and disclosures.

Why capital projects create elevated audit risk

Capital projects differ meaningfully from routine business operations. They are temporary, complex and frequently managed by project-specific teams operating under intense schedule and budget pressure. Decision-making authority is often decentralized, with significant judgment exercised by project managers, engineers and procurement personnel outside the finance function.

From an audit perspective, these conditions heighten the risk of:

These risks are amplified when projects involve joint ventures, extensive subcontracting, significant change orders or government funding—common characteristics of large projects, particularly in California.

In such environments, traditional audit risk models may not fully capture the behavioral and governance dynamics present in capital projects. While auditors are trained to assess pressure, opportunity and rationalization, capital projects often elevate additional risk factors—such as authority concentration, confidence-driven decision-making and informal control overrides—that can materially affect fraud risk and the risk of material misstatement.

Fraud, waste and abuse: Why auditors are drawn into the narrative

Not every troubled project involves fraud. However, allegations of fraud, waste or abuse frequently arise once projects go sideways. According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners’ Report to the Nations, most occupational fraud is detected through tips rather than audits or internal controls. 

From an auditor’s standpoint, this reality presents a challenge: fraud may exist even when audit procedures have been properly designed and executed.

Despite this, auditors are often scrutinized in hindsight when fraud impacts material balances or disclosures. Questions arise about whether risks were appropriately identified, whether professional skepticism was applied and whether audit responses were sufficient given what later comes to light.

This disconnect between how fraud is typically detected and how audit performance is evaluated underscores the importance of robust, well-documented fraud risk assessments, particularly in complex project environments.

Common project-related fraud risks with audit implications

Certain fraud and abuse schemes appear repeatedly in large capital projects and have direct relevance to audit risk.

Procurement and vendor-related misconduct

 may include bid rigging, undisclosed related-party transactions or vendor favoritism. These practices can result in inflated contract values and project costs that flow directly into capitalized balances or cost of revenue.

. While change orders are often legitimate, they can also be used to conceal inflated pricing, duplicate billings or costs that should have been included in the original contract. Weak documentation or inconsistent approval processes increase the risk that unsupported costs are recorded without sufficient audit evidence.

 by subcontractors or consultants can lead to inappropriate capitalization, misstated margins or impairment issues. Auditors often rely heavily on management representations and project documentation when evaluating these costs.

, particularly undisclosed relationships between project personnel and vendors, can undermine procurement integrity and raise questions about fraud risk assessment and related-party considerations.

These risks are often exacerbated by behavioral and governance dynamics within project leadership. One way auditors can sharpen professional skepticism in these situations is by supplementing traditional fraud risk thinking with additional behavioral risk lenses, such as those discussed below, "Using the Seduction of Fraud Diamond in Capital Project Audits."

Whistleblower allegations and audit response

Tips and whistleblower complaints are often the initial trigger for investigations involving capital projects. While auditors may not receive these tips directly, they frequently become aware of allegations through management, audit committees or legal counsel.

In capital project environments, whistleblower allegations frequently arise when individuals observe conduct that reflects excessive confidence, entitlement or disregard for controls by project leadership. While auditors are not responsible for evaluating intent or personality traits, awareness of these behavioral signals can help auditors better assess the credibility of allegations and determine whether underlying fraud risk factors may be present.

For auditors, the existence of whistleblower allegations—substantiated or not—should prompt careful consideration of whether fraud risk assessments need to be revisited, audit procedures modified or disclosures evaluated, particularly when allegations relate to areas of significant judgment or material balances.

Many large capital projects are subject to regulatory and legal requirements beyond standard commercial obligations. Projects involving government funding, public procurement rules, grants or public-private partnerships introduce additional compliance risks that can have financial statement implications.

Failures to comply with procurement rules, funding conditions, labor requirements or contractual obligations may result in disallowed costs, penalties, contract termination or litigation. When such outcomes are reasonably possible or probable, auditors must consider their impact on recognition, measurement, and disclosure.

As a result, compliance failures in capital projects often evolve into audit risk, even when they originate outside the finance function.

When significant issues arise, capital projects frequently end in disputes involving cost overruns, delays or allegations of improper conduct. In these situations, auditors may find their work examined alongside analyses prepared by forensic accountants, project controls experts and damages specialists engaged in litigation or arbitration.

In hindsight, disputes often highlight weaknesses such as inadequate documentation, poorly supported estimates, weak segregation of duties or informal approval processes. While auditors are not responsible for preventing disputes, their judgments are often evaluated against the information ultimately uncovered during these proceedings.

What auditors can do to manage professional risk

CPAs providing audit services for organizations involved in large capital projects can take several practical steps to manage professional and reputational risk, including:

These steps do not eliminate risk, but they help demonstrate a thoughtful, risk-based audit approach grounded in the realities of complex projects.

Using the Seduction of Fraud Diamond in capital project audits

Auditors have long relied on the Fraud Triangle—pressure, opportunity and rationalization—to assess fraud risk. While foundational, prior research published in California CPA has shown that many modern, large-scale frauds do not always fit neatly within this model.

The Seduction of Fraud (SoF) Diamond expands traditional fraud thinking by introducing four behavioral and environmental risk factors often present in significant frauds: opportunity, temptation, entitlement and boldness. For auditors involved in engagements with large capital projects, this framework can serve as a useful supplemental lens when exercising professional skepticism.

Applying the SoF Diamond to capital projects:

Why does this matters to auditors? Auditors are not expected to diagnose intent or personality traits. However, awareness of these dynamics can help auditors identify areas requiring heightened skepticism, better evaluate whistleblower allegations and more clearly document fraud risk considerations in complex project environments.

When capital projects later become the subject of investigations, disputes or litigation, audit judgments are often evaluated in hindsight. Using a structured lens such as the SoF Diamond can help auditors demonstrate that fraud risk assessments considered not only transactional risks, but also the behavioral and governance realities of large projects.

Large capital projects present unavoidable risk, and not every project failure reflects an audit deficiency. However, when projects experience significant fraud, waste or abuse, auditors are often pulled into the narrative—fairly or not.

By understanding how project risks, behavioral dynamics, compliance failures and disputes intersect, CPAs can better position themselves to answer the inevitable question—“Where were the auditors?”—with confidence, clarity and defensible professional judgment.

When Capital Projects Fail

For CPAs providing audit and attestation services to project owners or general contractors, understanding how fraud and compliance risks show up—and how those risks intersect with audit responsibilities—is critical.

Stay ahead with essential CPA resources

Golden State wisdom straight from the experts

CalCPA to DOE: Recognize Accounting as a Professional Degree

Shaping the Future of the CPA Profession

PCC Update: Recent Progress on Agenda Priorities

AI-First Finance Function

Advertisement

Professional Interest Areas

Advertisement

Daily Clips newsletter

Advertisement

Listen and watch...

Rise & Stride Podcast

brainfood bytes

Part articles and archives

CPAs: Making Sense of What Comes Next campaign