The Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) measures how much a company spends to obtain new, additional customers. Oftentimes, this calculation is used with the customer lifetime value (LTV) metric, that also projects the customer’s profitability to calculate the newly acquired customer’s value.
It’s primarily used to measure a business’ sales and marketing departments to figure out their profitability, profit margin and return on investment figures.
How to Calculate
CAC = Sales and Marketing Expense / Number of New Customers
Examples of the expenses include product and service promotion expenditures, special compensation and commissions, regular wage payments, and operating expenses.
The tally of newly acquired customers is simply how many new, unique contracts the business acquired. It’s important to keep the expenses and customer acquisition numbers consistent over the same periods.
Why It’s Important
Business owners and their managers, along with investors, can look at sales and marketing efforts from the return on investment of their expenditures and outcomes. For example, there could be multiple channels that sales and marketing took to obtain new customers over a quarter, half-year or 12-month period (such as email marketing, social media marketing, conferences, etc.). Based upon each channel, the customer acquisition cost is determined by dividing the financial outlay per customer acquired.
From there, each channel can be analyzed to see which one works well and, equally important, which ones don’t work well and should either be discontinued or modified. Internal stakeholders and external investors (both existing and potential) can look at trends to see how ongoing efforts may be working and if existing management is productive or needs to be replaced with more competent individuals.
Accounting Considerations
Based on FASB’s Accounting Standards Codification 340-40, businesses are required to document and capitalize incremental costs of securing new customer business if the related expenses are projected to be recouped.
An incremental cost in the scope of obtaining a contract is a cost an entity incurs to obtain a contract that wouldn’t have been incurred if the contract hadn’t been obtained.
While a sales commission (be it fixed or a percentage of a new contract) may be considered an eligible incremental cost to one of its employees, it’s not necessarily always the case. Rather, the true test of whether an incremental cost is capitalizable depends on the subjective interpretation of if a mandated financial expenditure for an incremental cost is attributed to signing a contract with a new customer.
The following sample situations often require more investigation to determine whether the capitalization of costs is applicable:
Equity issuances based upon meeting production and essential function goals
Employee compensation according to previous years’ executed contracts
Sales commissions allocated over multiple timeframes and/or to more than one employee for a single contract
ASC 340-40 also stipulates the amortization schedule of capitalization costs of obtaining a customer contract on a scheduled timeline that follows the delivery to the customer of the contracted goods or services.
Conclusion
While the customer acquisition cost may be straightforward, when it comes to subjective cases, businesses that have experience with murkier situations are able to make the most of their subjective sales and marketing expenses when navigating the tax and accounting landscape.
Alan F Burke CPA
Understanding the Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC)
April 1, 2026 · Accounting News, Blog
⏱ 3 min read
The Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) measures how much a company spends to obtain new, additional customers. Oftentimes, this calculation is used with the customer lifetime value (LTV) metric, that also projects the customer’s profitability to calculate the newly acquired customer’s value.
It’s primarily used to measure a business’ sales and marketing departments to figure out their profitability, profit margin and return on investment figures.
How to Calculate
CAC = Sales and Marketing Expense / Number of New Customers
Examples of the expenses include product and service promotion expenditures, special compensation and commissions, regular wage payments, and operating expenses.
The tally of newly acquired customers is simply how many new, unique contracts the business acquired. It’s important to keep the expenses and customer acquisition numbers consistent over the same periods.
Why It’s Important
Business owners and their managers, along with investors, can look at sales and marketing efforts from the return on investment of their expenditures and outcomes. For example, there could be multiple channels that sales and marketing took to obtain new customers over a quarter, half-year or 12-month period (such as email marketing, social media marketing, conferences, etc.). Based upon each channel, the customer acquisition cost is determined by dividing the financial outlay per customer acquired.
From there, each channel can be analyzed to see which one works well and, equally important, which ones don’t work well and should either be discontinued or modified. Internal stakeholders and external investors (both existing and potential) can look at trends to see how ongoing efforts may be working and if existing management is productive or needs to be replaced with more competent individuals.
Accounting Considerations
Based on FASB’s Accounting Standards Codification 340-40, businesses are required to document and capitalize incremental costs of securing new customer business if the related expenses are projected to be recouped.
An incremental cost in the scope of obtaining a contract is a cost an entity incurs to obtain a contract that wouldn’t have been incurred if the contract hadn’t been obtained.
While a sales commission (be it fixed or a percentage of a new contract) may be considered an eligible incremental cost to one of its employees, it’s not necessarily always the case. Rather, the true test of whether an incremental cost is capitalizable depends on the subjective interpretation of if a mandated financial expenditure for an incremental cost is attributed to signing a contract with a new customer.
The following sample situations often require more investigation to determine whether the capitalization of costs is applicable:
Equity issuances based upon meeting production and essential function goals
Employee compensation according to previous years’ executed contracts
Sales commissions allocated over multiple timeframes and/or to more than one employee for a single contract
ASC 340-40 also stipulates the amortization schedule of capitalization costs of obtaining a customer contract on a scheduled timeline that follows the delivery to the customer of the contracted goods or services.
Conclusion
While the customer acquisition cost may be straightforward, when it comes to subjective cases, businesses that have experience with murkier situations are able to make the most of their subjective sales and marketing expenses when navigating the tax and accounting landscape.
Disclaimer
These articles are intended to provide general resources for the tax and accounting needs of small businesses and individuals. Service2Client LLC is the author, but is not engaged in rendering specific legal, accounting, financial or professional advice. Service2Client LLC makes no representation that the recommendations of Service2Client LLC will achieve any result. The NSAD has not reviewed any of the Service2Client LLC content. Readers are encouraged to contact a professional regarding the topics in these articles. The images linked to these articles are protected by copyright and should not be copied for any reason.
Picture two things happening at the same time. The agency responsible for reviewing your tax return is understaffed and buried under a backlog, and the software that the agency uses to catch filing errors just keeps getting better.
That combination should give any taxpayer pause this season. Not because an audit is necessarily coming, but because if something does go wrong, the window for getting it resolved quickly has shrunk considerably.
The IRS Is Running Lean, But It’s Technology Isn’t
The agency lost more than a quarter of its workforce in 2025. The National Taxpayer Advocate’s most recent annual report to Congress documented the drop: from roughly 102,000 employees to about 74,000. Those departures, through a mix of voluntary exits and layoffs, spread across nearly every division.
Funding took a hit at the same time. Congress reversed a significant portion of the IRS budget boost approved through the Inflation Reduction Act, pulling back billions earmarked for enforcement and technology investment. A government shutdown that stretched across October and November of last year piled further delays onto an already strained system. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration confirmed in a January report what tax practitioners were already seeing firsthand: a serious backlog in the processing of amended returns and taxpayer correspondence.
Here’s the part that catches people off guard. None of that has slowed the IRS’s ability to spot problems on your return. The agency’s systems cross-reference what you report against data received independently from employers, brokers, and financial institutions. Artificial intelligence and expanded automation have made error detection faster and more precise, staffing levels notwithstanding.
Fewer people are available to handle problems once they surface. But the technology responsible for finding those problems is running better than ever.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Tax professionals working with real clients are the best window into what this means day to day. Advisors report receiving IRS notices today that are resolving matters dating back to 2023, showing a multi-year lag on what should be routine correspondence. The practical response among preparers has been to tighten processes and leave less to chance.
Some advisors have added specific safeguards, such as obtaining power of attorney to monitor clients’ IRS online accounts directly rather than waiting for slow paper notices. Others describe the current environment plainly: the cost of needing to amend a return has gone up, not necessarily in dollars, but in time and uncertainty.
A poll of tax and financial advisors conducted during a recent industry webinar found that every respondent is maintaining at least the same level of care they applied when IRS staffing was at full strength. Nearly half said they are actively raising the bar this season.
What You Should Do Differently
Here are a few practical steps worth taking seriously this year:
Give your preparer complete and accurate information. Incomplete or inconsistent reporting is where most errors begin, and those errors are exactly what the IRS’ matching systems are built to catch.
If you are claiming something new on your return, ask your preparer to walk you through the basis for it. Understanding what you are filing and why is reasonable.
Set up an IRS online account at IRS.gov if you haven’t already. You can monitor your filing status, review transcripts, and spot potential issues before they become formal notices.
And if something does go sideways, respond early. Letting a notice sit without a response doesn’t slow the IRS down. It just costs you time you don’t have.
Conclusion
The agency may be a smaller operation than it was a few years ago. But the part of it designed to find mistakes on your return is still very much running.
Alan F Burke CPA
Filing Your 2026 Tax Return? The Stakes Just Got Higher
April 1, 2026 · Blog, Tax and Financial News
⏱ 4 min read
Picture two things happening at the same time. The agency responsible for reviewing your tax return is understaffed and buried under a backlog, and the software that the agency uses to catch filing errors just keeps getting better.
That combination should give any taxpayer pause this season. Not because an audit is necessarily coming, but because if something does go wrong, the window for getting it resolved quickly has shrunk considerably.
The IRS Is Running Lean, But It’s Technology Isn’t
The agency lost more than a quarter of its workforce in 2025. The National Taxpayer Advocate’s most recent annual report to Congress documented the drop: from roughly 102,000 employees to about 74,000. Those departures, through a mix of voluntary exits and layoffs, spread across nearly every division.
Funding took a hit at the same time. Congress reversed a significant portion of the IRS budget boost approved through the Inflation Reduction Act, pulling back billions earmarked for enforcement and technology investment. A government shutdown that stretched across October and November of last year piled further delays onto an already strained system. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration confirmed in a January report what tax practitioners were already seeing firsthand: a serious backlog in the processing of amended returns and taxpayer correspondence.
Here’s the part that catches people off guard. None of that has slowed the IRS’s ability to spot problems on your return. The agency’s systems cross-reference what you report against data received independently from employers, brokers, and financial institutions. Artificial intelligence and expanded automation have made error detection faster and more precise, staffing levels notwithstanding.
Fewer people are available to handle problems once they surface. But the technology responsible for finding those problems is running better than ever.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Tax professionals working with real clients are the best window into what this means day to day. Advisors report receiving IRS notices today that are resolving matters dating back to 2023, showing a multi-year lag on what should be routine correspondence. The practical response among preparers has been to tighten processes and leave less to chance.
Some advisors have added specific safeguards, such as obtaining power of attorney to monitor clients’ IRS online accounts directly rather than waiting for slow paper notices. Others describe the current environment plainly: the cost of needing to amend a return has gone up, not necessarily in dollars, but in time and uncertainty.
A poll of tax and financial advisors conducted during a recent industry webinar found that every respondent is maintaining at least the same level of care they applied when IRS staffing was at full strength. Nearly half said they are actively raising the bar this season.
What You Should Do Differently
Here are a few practical steps worth taking seriously this year:
Give your preparer complete and accurate information. Incomplete or inconsistent reporting is where most errors begin, and those errors are exactly what the IRS’ matching systems are built to catch.
If you are claiming something new on your return, ask your preparer to walk you through the basis for it. Understanding what you are filing and why is reasonable.
Set up an IRS online account at IRS.gov if you haven’t already. You can monitor your filing status, review transcripts, and spot potential issues before they become formal notices.
And if something does go sideways, respond early. Letting a notice sit without a response doesn’t slow the IRS down. It just costs you time you don’t have.
Conclusion
The agency may be a smaller operation than it was a few years ago. But the part of it designed to find mistakes on your return is still very much running.
Disclaimer
These articles are intended to provide general resources for the tax and accounting needs of small businesses and individuals. Service2Client LLC is the author, but is not engaged in rendering specific legal, accounting, financial or professional advice. Service2Client LLC makes no representation that the recommendations of Service2Client LLC will achieve any result. The NSAD has not reviewed any of the Service2Client LLC content. Readers are encouraged to contact a professional regarding the topics in these articles. The images linked to these articles are protected by copyright and should not be copied for any reason.
The era of artificial intelligence as a competitive advantage has hit a structural barrier – the Governance Wall. Some time back in 2024 and 2025, organizations raced to adopt AI tools to automate decisions, improve efficiency and cut costs. Now, as we move through 2026, the conversation is shifting from “How powerful is your AI?” to “Can you explain its decisions to a regulator, customer or even a judge?”
As global regulations move from abstract guidelines to strict enforcement, businesses must move from pure automation to strategies defined by traceable, human-centred oversight.
The Shift From Innovation to Accountability
In the early days of AI adoption, the priority was speed and results. Algorithms made decisions behind the scenes with little transparency. As AI improved, it was used in high-stakes scenarios like screening job applications, approving loans, detecting fraud and influencing health decisions. When these systems make mistakes, there are consequences that could include lost opportunities, discrimination claims or legal exposure.
As a result, regulators and even consumers are demanding answers. This shift has seen businesses move from AI innovation to AI accountability, where every automated decision must be justified, traceable, and explainable.
The Governance Wall and Regulatory Landscape
The governance wall refers to the growing layers of regulation, policies, and legal expectations that AI systems must pass before deployment.
AI laws such as the EU AI Act, which will take full effect in August, have set a global gold standard for transparency. One of the articles in this law is the Right to Explanation, which requires any company using AI for high-risk decisions to explain the logic behind the output.
Across the United States, some states have already introduced stricter AI-related rules. Notable examples include California’s AB 2013 and Colorado’s SB 24-205 state laws requiring businesses to disclose when AI is used in consequential life decisions, such as hiring, insurance premiums, or credit lending.
The Real Business Impact
For many businesses, this shift is more than a compliance issue as it introduces a complete operational change.
Explainability is no longer optional AI systems must be designed in a way that allows you to explain outcomes clearly. For instance, if a system rejects a loan application or filters out a job candidate, you must be able to justify why. Hence, a system must have transparent algorithms, clear logic pathways, and documented decision criteria.
Audit trails are becoming mandatory Businesses are now expected to maintain audit trails. These are detailed records showing what the AI did, when it did it, and why it made a specific decision. If regulators or legal teams ask questions, you must provide evidence and not assumptions.
Pre-use notices and opt-out options Before an AI agent processes a customer’s data, a business may be required to notify the customer that AI is being used, explain how it impacts them, and offer a way to opt out.
Board-level oversight AI is no longer just an IT concern. Executives and directors are increasingly responsible for managing AI-related risks, ensuring compliance with regulations, and protecting the company from legal exposure. In other words, the AI strategy must align with the legal and risk management strategy.
The SEC and the AI Washing Crackdown
While local regulators focus on consumers, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is focusing on investors. As AI becomes a buzzword, many companies are tempted to exaggerate their capabilities. This practice, known as AI washing, involves claiming to use advanced AI when the technology used is minimal or non-existent. Companies do this to attract investors, boost valuation, and appear innovative in a competitive market.
The SEC has made it clear that any AI claims that are misleading will be treated as securities fraud. This is not just a problem for tech giants, as even small and medium businesses seeking funding are having their tech stacks audited. Firms found in violation face serious consequences – as happened to Delphia and Global Predictions, which had to pay $400,000 in penalties.
Strategic Solutions
For a business to scale without being paralyzed by regulations, it must:
Implement Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) systems by positioning human staff as quality assurance to sign off on high-stakes outputs. This will provide the human judgment layer that regulators demand.
Adopt small language models as they are smaller, domain-specific, and easier to interpret and audit. They also offer explainable AI (XAI) capabilities, making it easy to show your work.
Unified governance to facilitate compliance. This will require leadership, including legal (interpret laws), IT (build audit trails), and HR or operations (manage the human oversight) to work together.
Alan F Burke CPA
The Governance Wall and AI Regulation
April 1, 2026 · Blog, What's New in Technology
⏱ 4 min read
The era of artificial intelligence as a competitive advantage has hit a structural barrier – the Governance Wall. Some time back in 2024 and 2025, organizations raced to adopt AI tools to automate decisions, improve efficiency and cut costs. Now, as we move through 2026, the conversation is shifting from “How powerful is your AI?” to “Can you explain its decisions to a regulator, customer or even a judge?”
As global regulations move from abstract guidelines to strict enforcement, businesses must move from pure automation to strategies defined by traceable, human-centred oversight.
The Shift From Innovation to Accountability
In the early days of AI adoption, the priority was speed and results. Algorithms made decisions behind the scenes with little transparency. As AI improved, it was used in high-stakes scenarios like screening job applications, approving loans, detecting fraud and influencing health decisions. When these systems make mistakes, there are consequences that could include lost opportunities, discrimination claims or legal exposure.
As a result, regulators and even consumers are demanding answers. This shift has seen businesses move from AI innovation to AI accountability, where every automated decision must be justified, traceable, and explainable.
The Governance Wall and Regulatory Landscape
The governance wall refers to the growing layers of regulation, policies, and legal expectations that AI systems must pass before deployment.
AI laws such as the EU AI Act, which will take full effect in August, have set a global gold standard for transparency. One of the articles in this law is the Right to Explanation, which requires any company using AI for high-risk decisions to explain the logic behind the output.
Across the United States, some states have already introduced stricter AI-related rules. Notable examples include California’s AB 2013 and Colorado’s SB 24-205 state laws requiring businesses to disclose when AI is used in consequential life decisions, such as hiring, insurance premiums, or credit lending.
The Real Business Impact
For many businesses, this shift is more than a compliance issue as it introduces a complete operational change.
Explainability is no longer optional AI systems must be designed in a way that allows you to explain outcomes clearly. For instance, if a system rejects a loan application or filters out a job candidate, you must be able to justify why. Hence, a system must have transparent algorithms, clear logic pathways, and documented decision criteria.
Audit trails are becoming mandatory Businesses are now expected to maintain audit trails. These are detailed records showing what the AI did, when it did it, and why it made a specific decision. If regulators or legal teams ask questions, you must provide evidence and not assumptions.
Pre-use notices and opt-out options Before an AI agent processes a customer’s data, a business may be required to notify the customer that AI is being used, explain how it impacts them, and offer a way to opt out.
Board-level oversight AI is no longer just an IT concern. Executives and directors are increasingly responsible for managing AI-related risks, ensuring compliance with regulations, and protecting the company from legal exposure. In other words, the AI strategy must align with the legal and risk management strategy.
The SEC and the AI Washing Crackdown
While local regulators focus on consumers, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is focusing on investors. As AI becomes a buzzword, many companies are tempted to exaggerate their capabilities. This practice, known as AI washing, involves claiming to use advanced AI when the technology used is minimal or non-existent. Companies do this to attract investors, boost valuation, and appear innovative in a competitive market.
The SEC has made it clear that any AI claims that are misleading will be treated as securities fraud. This is not just a problem for tech giants, as even small and medium businesses seeking funding are having their tech stacks audited. Firms found in violation face serious consequences – as happened to Delphia and Global Predictions, which had to pay $400,000 in penalties.
Strategic Solutions
For a business to scale without being paralyzed by regulations, it must:
Implement Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) systems by positioning human staff as quality assurance to sign off on high-stakes outputs. This will provide the human judgment layer that regulators demand.
Adopt small language models as they are smaller, domain-specific, and easier to interpret and audit. They also offer explainable AI (XAI) capabilities, making it easy to show your work.
Unified governance to facilitate compliance. This will require leadership, including legal (interpret laws), IT (build audit trails), and HR or operations (manage the human oversight) to work together.
Disclaimer
These articles are intended to provide general resources for the tax and accounting needs of small businesses and individuals. Service2Client LLC is the author, but is not engaged in rendering specific legal, accounting, financial or professional advice. Service2Client LLC makes no representation that the recommendations of Service2Client LLC will achieve any result. The NSAD has not reviewed any of the Service2Client LLC content. Readers are encouraged to contact a professional regarding the topics in these articles. The images linked to these articles are protected by copyright and should not be copied for any reason.
The Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) measures how much a company spends to obtain new, additional customers. Oftentimes, this calculation is used with the customer lifetime value (LTV) metric, that also projects the customer’s profitability to calculate the newly acquired customer’s value.
Picture two things happening at the same time. The agency responsible for reviewing your tax return is understaffed and buried under a backlog, and the software that the agency uses to catch filing errors just keeps getting better.
The era of artificial intelligence as a competitive advantage has hit a structural barrier – the Governance Wall. Some time back in 2024 and 2025, organizations raced to adopt AI tools to automate decisions, improve efficiency and cut costs. Now, as we move through 2026, the conversation is shifting from “How powerful is your AI?” to “Can you explain its decisions to a regulator, customer or even a judge?”