IRS guidance

Who this applies to: Leaders responsible for finance/accounting, risk management, compliance, operations, IT, and the C-suite at financial institutions.

The FMS East Coast Regional Conference recently brought financial professionals together in Annapolis, Maryland, for three days of learning, discussion, and networking. During the conference, we presented “The Future of Finance: How AI and Tech Can Transform,” a session focused on how artificial intelligence and automation are changing finance, accounting, risk, and operations within financial institutions.  

Our central message was straightforward: Financial institutions will not gain a lasting advantage simply by using AI. As these tools become more widely adopted, differentiation will come from how effectively leaders redesign processes, develop their people, strengthen governance, and improve decision-making.

Finance is moving from reporting to anticipating

Historically, many finance functions have concentrated on periodic reporting, manual reconciliations, historical analysis, and responding to issues after they occur. The emerging model is more continuous and forward-looking, with real-time visibility, automated monitoring, predictive insight, and proactive decision support.  

AI may help financial institutions move routine processing into the background while allowing finance professionals to spend more time interpreting information, advising leadership, and applying judgment. Potential applications include:

• Reconciliations
• Regulatory change monitoring
• Board-package preparation
• Vendor due diligence
• Internal audit planning
• Fraud detection
• Policy summarization
• Credit and liquidity analytics

Importantly, AI is not the same as traditional automation, which generally follows predetermined rules and structured inputs. AI-enabled solutions can work with structured and unstructured information and may generate, predict, summarize, or recommend. Those capabilities create meaningful opportunities, but they also introduce new risks.

Innovation must be matched with governance

Institutions considering an AI use case should ask several questions at the outset:

• Is the use case material?
• Who owns it?
• What data will the tool use?
• Could the output affect customers or members?
• What controls and monitoring will be necessary?
• What vendor risks are involved?

AI may introduce risks involving data quality, inaccurate or fabricated outputs, bias, cybersecurity, privacy, model drift, third-party vendors, overreliance, and governance. Addressing these risks begins with clearly defined ownership, appropriate board visibility, acceptable-use policies, approved tools, data restrictions, training expectations, and a documented risk assessment for each use case.

One of the most important principles from the session was to treat AI-generated outputs as assertions requiring evidence, not as facts. Depending on the use case, controls may include human review, performance testing, segregation of duties, source citations, third-party validation, exception management, and evidence retention.

What the case studies revealed

During the session, attendees worked through scenarios involving AI-assisted reconciliations, AI-generated board reporting, and regulatory change monitoring.

In the reconciliation scenario, an overly broad matching threshold caused the system to clear items incorrectly. In the board-reporting scenario, AI-generated commentary relied on an outdated ALCO assumption. In the regulatory-monitoring scenario, an incomplete source library caused the institution to miss an important update.

Although the scenarios involved different processes, the lessons about what matters were consistent, including:

• Data sources
• Human review
• Evidence
• Ongoing monitoring

The objective is not to slow innovation. It is to make innovation reliable.

Start with the process, not the technology

Institutions do not need to transform everything at once. A practical approach is to:

• Establish governance
• Inventory current use cases
• Assess risks
• Design controls
• Implement and communicate expectations
• Monitor and adapt

Before selecting a tool, leaders should map the existing workflow, identify bottlenecks and manual workarounds, locate sources of error or delay, and clarify ownership. Opportunities can then be prioritized based on business impact, frequency, risk reduction, feasibility, and data availability. A controlled pilot allows the institution to measure results, refine controls, and scale intentionally. 

For many institutions, practical starting points may include reconciliations and exception management, board-package summarization, internal audit risk assessment, regulatory change monitoring, and vendor contract review. More complex applications, including fraud detection, credit risk analytics, CECL forecasting support, liquidity forecasting, and continuous auditing, may provide significant value but require more deliberate governance. Autonomous approvals or high-impact customer decisions without meaningful human review should be approached with particular caution.

The future finance function will not remove people from the process. Instead, technology will perform more routine tasks while people remain responsible for judgment, ownership, challenge, and decision-making. The institutions best positioned for that future will be those that start thoughtfully, build governance into their initiatives, and scale only after they understand both the benefits and the risks.

Key takeaways

• Focus on process improvement, not just technology adoption, because long-term value from AI comes from better workflows, stronger governance, and more informed decision-making.
• Shift finance teams from historical reporting toward real-time insights, predictive analysis, and proactive decision support.
• Establish governance before scaling AI initiatives, including clear ownership, risk assessments, usage policies, data controls, and monitoring.
• Verify AI-generated outputs through human review and supporting evidence, treating AI results as assertions that require validation rather than fact.

About BerryDunn

Have a question about how your financial institution can thoughtfully assess its processes, train team members, create effective internal controls, and improve decision-making to maximize the value of AI? Please don’t hesitate to reach out. Learn more about our team and services.

Individuals working in corrections are aware that technology access and use have generally been limited for those on the front lines. Traditionally, correctional staff had limited access to computers and the internet within offender housing units, largely due to valid security concerns and an established correctional culture that discouraged technological access in areas with high offender populations. Despite this historical pattern, the need to streamline operations and improve overall efficiency and effectiveness has driven a shift in technology use in the corrections space. For many organizations, this has involved selection and implementation of a new offender management system (OMS), designed to meet the needs of the ever-evolving corrections space.

In my prior role as a Deputy Warden, I was integrally involved in the implementation of a new OMS, which served all the facilities within our state. Although this change was initially viewed myopically as simply moving to a new OMS, I quickly discovered, as did many of my colleagues, that this was a much broader and more necessary endeavor. At the time the project began, we were using outdated systems that did not communicate with each other. Our legacy platform had stopped receiving system updates, and staff were maintaining their own spreadsheets to track basic offender information to complete their job duties. Additionally, most correctional staff had limited computer access, which often required them to leave their post to go to a computer lab to submit their time sheets and complete any required reports.

Based on recognition of various operational efficiency obstacles, we knew we needed a new OMS. To that end, our goal was simple: to give frontline staff unprecedented real-time access to offender information so they could perform their jobs safely and more efficiently and effectively. That goal, though simple, was not easy to accomplish, because implementing new software in a correctional environment is more complicated than installing software in most other industries. The process of implementing a new OMS required us to maintain strict security standards while introducing technology into areas where it had not existed before. That involved integrating systems into a secure environment within an offender housing unit and taking specific steps to prohibit any possible unauthorized access to the OMS.

To address access concerns, we worked closely with frontline staff and thoughtfully considered our physical plant. We installed security cages around office desks; deployed hardened, secure workstations; and invested heavily in infrastructure, running new network cable and electrical lines to support both current operations and future growth. Throughout this process, we solicited and received feedback from correctional officers and made several changes to our plans along the way, including installing automatic integrated locks on the security gate. Once we established a secure environment within the housing unit, we installed the computers—which provided real-time access to the new OMS—and the impact was immediate.

In the past, frontline staff had relied on manual logs, institutional knowledge, or the need to call the control unit to receive various offender information. The new OMS changed those processes in a significant way. Through role-based access controls, secure networks, and hardened workstations, officers gained appropriate, controlled access to data at their fingertips. This included access to offender locations, work assignments, holds, custody levels, and conduct history. Officers could review assault flags, see pending conduct reports, and verify classification levels directly from their assigned posts. Incident and conduct reports could be completed at their post and no longer required backfill relief to get paperwork completed on time. Communication improved across the organization because officers now had regular access to email, policy updates, and facility-wide messaging at their post. Operational awareness, efficiency, and overall effectiveness increased, and so did overall safety.

Training was a crucial factor in the new OMS rollout, as is common with any new policies or procurement implementations; however, the magnitude of implementing the new OMS was at another level, requiring significant effort and coordination. Ultimately, to improve the likelihood of success for this rollout, we implemented a variety of training methods, including a train-the-trainer model, role-specific training, and providing staff access to an OMS test environment prior to the go-live date. Through this process, we concluded that giving staff advanced access to the OMS test environment was one of the most impactful steps we took, especially for hesitant or resistant staff. This process provided them with an opportunity to test the system using real-world scenarios. It reduced resistance, addressed fear, and replaced uncertainty with confidence. When staff were able to see how the system would help them perform their jobs more efficiently, they quickly recognized the value in moving to the new system, and they embraced it.

In the short term, following the OMS implementation, we saw better decision-making, more streamlined workflows, and improved communication across departments. As our use of the system continued, we noted the opportunities for advanced analytics, better risk identification, and future expansion of digital tools for both staff and offenders. Despite these benefits, the most important outcome wasn’t a technical one. The most valuable outcome we achieved involved empowering our staff and equipping them with modern tools to assist them with their job duties, resulting in a more autonomous and productive workforce.

The success of a new OMS does not depend on the technology alone. It requires alignment between people, processes, and the systems put into place. This does not happen by accident; it demands a thoughtful and intentional approach. When the planning and implementation efforts allow those three elements to come together, the result is a safer correctional environment, more efficient operations, and frontline staff who have the information they need to make the right decisions at the right time.

If you would like to hear more about my experience with implementing a new OMS, feel free to reach out.

How BerryDunn can help

Modernizing your corrections technology platforms is a daunting undertaking. Our experienced team has helped organizations across the country align their modernization efforts with industry best practices and standards. Learn more about our team and services.

Who this applies to: Compliance officers, risk managers, revenue cycle, or healthcare administrators in a specialty, primary care, prenatal, or pediatric practice, or Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC).

Has your medical practice seen an increase in missed appointments? Is your practice seeking to improve attendance for preventive care services? If yes, are you evaluating whether to establish a patient incentive program? Before you proceed, there are federal and state rules that should be analyzed to determine whether to initiate a pilot incentive program.

Patient inducements

A well-designed incentive program must be structured neither to give the appearance of nor be perceived as a patient inducement, based on US Office of the Inspector General (OIG) guidance. The OIG’s nominal value threshold applies exclusively to non-cash items; cash in any form is prohibited, as are general-purpose prepaid cards. Cash equivalents are items that patients can convert to cash and use for any purpose, such as gift cards from “big box” stores. The nominal value (“de minimis”) threshold sets the following limits for gifts:

A. Per-item limit: No single gift can have a retail value above $15. 

B. Annual aggregate limit: The total value of all gifts to the same patient in a calendar year cannot exceed $75. 

The Beneficiary Inducement Prohibition of the Civil Monetary Penalties (CMP) Law 

This law differs from the scope of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). The Beneficiary Inducements CMP provides for the imposition of financial penalties (i.e., CMPs) against any person who offers or transfers remuneration to a Medicare or Medicaid program beneficiary if this might influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider or practitioner. Remuneration means anything of value, whether cash, cash equivalents, or below-market-value goods or services.

Violations of the Beneficiary Inducement Prohibition can result in monetary penalties, plus three times the amount claimed from federal programs, and potential exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. 

To determine whether a patient incentive program violates the Beneficiary Inducement Prohibition, the National Association for Community Health Centers (NACHC) recommends that an organization ask the following three questions:

1. Is your organization proposing to offer something of value (remuneration) to patients covered by Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or Medicare?
2. Is the remuneration likely to influence patients’ decisions to receive goods and services for your organization?
3. Are the goods or services paid for by Medicaid, CHIP, or Medicare?

If the answer to all three questions is yes, then the patient incentive program violates the Beneficiary Inducement Prohibition unless it fits within an existing regulatory exception or safe harbor. 

What is a safe harbor?

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has the authority to protect certain arrangements and payment practices (i.e., safe harbors) under the federal AKS. The safe harbor regulations are updated periodically to reflect changing business practices and technologies in the healthcare industry. These safe harbor provisions have been developed to limit the reach of the statute somewhat by permitting certain non-abusive arrangements (42 CFR 1001.952 Safe Harbors), while encouraging beneficial or innocuous arrangements.

One example is the Preventive Care Services Exception. The regulatory definition of preventive care, for purposes of this exception, means any service that: (1) is a prenatal service or a post-natal well-baby visit or is a specific clinical service described in the current US Preventive Services Task Force’s Guide to Clinical Preventive Services and (2) is reimbursable in whole or in part by a federal healthcare program.  

Clearly define your strategy

• Define the population of patients eligible for the incentive pilot program, purpose, types of eligible visits (i.e., those scheduled based on the treatment plan) and the criteria for earning an incentive. Consider limiting eligibility for participation in an incentive pilot program to established patients, patients at a certain stage of a treatment plan, and/or a particular program.
• Establish a documentation system to track the annual gift disbursement process.
• Refrain from advertising a pilot attendance incentive program in new patient brochures or other marketing collateral to avoid the appearance of improper patient inducement or recruitment.
• Document which safe harbor is relevant to your pilot program. If there are any questions about whether the proposed incentive program qualifies, your organization may seek an advisory opinion from the OIG.
• Confirm that your incentive strategy does not violate any state rules prior to implementation.

Does your state have rules pertaining to incentives, lotteries, and raffles? Depending on your healthcare organization’s corporate status, the term “raffle” may be impermissible. For example, California only permits raffles to be conducted by nonprofit organizations; interested nonprofit organizations must apply for a raffle registration on an annual basis.

BerryDunn can help

Has your healthcare organization evaluated its strategies to promote patients’ attendance for well-child visits or prenatal care or other ambulatory services? If you already have an existing incentive program, have you evaluated it recently to determine whether or not it falls within a safe harbor? Are there any relevant state regulatory requirements that should be evaluated? 

Our healthcare compliance team can help. We incorporate deep, hands-on knowledge with industry best practices to help your organization manage compliance and revenue integrity risks. Learn more about our healthcare compliance consulting team and services.

Additional resources:

• General Questions Regarding Certain Fraud and Abuse Authorities | Office of Inspector General | Government Oversight | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
• Federal Register: Medicare and State Health Care Programs: Fraud and Abuse; Revisions to Safe Harbors Under the Anti-Kickback Statute, and Civil Monetary Penalty Rules Regarding Beneficiary Inducements 
• Structuring Patient Incentive Programs to Minimize Risk Under Federal Laws
• https://www.nachc.org/nachc-content/uploads/2024/12/Issue-Brief-Structuring-Patient-Incentive-Programs-to-Minimize-Risk-Under-Federal-Laws
• HHS OIG Fact Sheet on Beneficiary Inducements
• Advisory Opinion Process | Office of Inspector General | Government Oversight | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Who this applies to: Chief Financial Officers, Chief Operating Officers, and Chief Compliance Officers at financial institutions.

Financial institutions rely heavily on third-party service providers to deliver critical technology, payment processing, online banking, compliance support, and other essential services. Recognizing the challenges many institutions face in managing these relationships, federal regulators recently issued a joint statement on core service providers and proposed updated third-party risk management guidance.

Focus on risk, not checklists

A central theme of the proposed guidance is that third-party risk management should be tailored to an institution's size, complexity, and risk profile. Regulators emphasize that not all vendor relationships present the same level of risk and that oversight should be tailored to the risks posed by each relationship. Instead, institutions are encouraged to focus resources on relationships that pose the greatest operational, financial, compliance, or customer impact. The regulators also reiterate that the guidance is principles-based rather than prescriptive, and that supervisory findings would be based on unsafe or unsound practices or legal violations rather than deviations from the guidance itself. 

The agencies also emphasize that effective risk management is about managing and understanding risk, not eliminating it entirely. Institutions may accept residual risks when doing so is consistent with their risk appetite and business objectives.

Regulators clarify their approach to core service providers

In a separate joint statement, regulators highlighted concerns about the market dynamics surrounding core service providers. Many financial institutions depend on a small number of large providers and often face challenges obtaining due diligence information, negotiating contracts, monitoring performance, or changing providers. 

To address these concerns, regulators indicated they will consider several factors when determining the level of supervisory attention directed toward core providers, including:

• Transparency in sharing due diligence and performance information 
• Timely disclosure of operational issues and cybersecurity incidents 
• Use of clear service-level agreements 
• Opaque pricing and billing practices 
• Contract provisions that restrict an institution's ability to switch providers or integrate with other vendors 
• Technology investments and operational resilience capabilities 

Accountability for core service providers may increase

Another noteworthy aspect of the regulators' joint statement is the reminder that, under certain circumstances, employees or agents of a core service provider may be considered Institution-Affiliated Parties (IAPs) of an institution. If an individual meets the statutory definition of an IAP, banking regulators may have authority to pursue enforcement actions directly against that individual for misconduct affecting a financial institution. The statement does not create new authority, but it signals regulators' willingness to consider existing enforcement tools when evaluating concerns involving third-party service providers. 

For institutions, this development could ultimately strengthen accountability within the vendor ecosystem. While institutions remain responsible for managing risks associated with outsourced activities, the statement suggests regulators are focused not only on how institutions oversee their core providers, but also on whether core providers and their personnel are meeting their own obligations to operate in a safe, sound, and transparent manner.

What financial institutions should do now

Financial institutions may wish to review their third-party risk management programs with an eye toward ensuring oversight efforts are aligned with actual risk levels. Institutions should also evaluate key core-provider contracts, service-level agreements, incident notification processes, and contingency plans for critical services.

The proposals suggest regulators are seeking to maintain a strong focus on material risks while encouraging a more tailored and efficient approach to third-party risk management. For institutions, that could mean more flexibility in managing lower-risk vendors while placing greater emphasis on understanding and managing relationships with critical service providers.

Bottom line for financial institutions

Regulators appear to be moving toward a more practical, risk-based supervisory framework that recognizes the realities institutions face when working with core providers and other third parties. Institutions should use this as an opportunity to ask whether their current vendor oversight is appropriately scaled to actual risk. In some cases, financial institutions may be applying the same level of documentation, review, and monitoring to lower-risk vendors as they do to critical service providers, creating unnecessary burden without meaningfully reducing risk. Vendors deemed to be low risk likely warrant a scaled-back oversight approach, allowing institutions to focus their oversight activities on vendors that truly represent the highest risk to the institution. Financial institutions that can demonstrate thoughtful risk assessment, proportional oversight, and sound governance should be well positioned under the evolving guidance and should use the guidance as an opportunity to level set their third-party risk management program.

Key takeaways

• Align third-party oversight activities with the actual risk posed by each vendor relationship rather than applying the same level of scrutiny across all providers.
• Focus risk management resources on third parties that present the greatest operational, financial, compliance, or customer impact.
• Evaluate contracts, service-level agreements, incident notification processes, and contingency plans for critical service providers. 
• Recognize that regulators are increasing their focus on core service providers, including transparency, operational resilience, and accountability for misconduct.
• Use the proposed guidance as an opportunity to reassess vendor risk classifications and scale oversight efforts appropriately for lower- and higher-risk relationships.

About BerryDunn

Our dedicated audit, tax, and consulting professionals understand the financial services industry and its challenges and are committed to helping you meet and exceed regulatory requirements. We partner with you to bring tailored approaches to fit your needs and operations and provide guidance on best practices and recommendations that make sense for you. Learn more about our services and team. 

Grants and contributions for capital asset purchases can affect how nonprofit organizations report revenue, assets, and net assets under US GAAP. This article explains the accounting considerations for nonprofits and nonprofit healthcare entities when funding is restricted for capital acquisitions after any conditions for recognition have been satisfied. It covers how to evaluate the terms and conditions of the funding, apply capitalization policies, determine when donor restrictions may expire, and shares best practices for documenting and reporting capital assets. Because the accounting for a grant or contribution and the related capital expenditure are separate considerations, proper treatment helps avoid reporting errors and supports audits, board reporting, and grant compliance.

Who this applies to: CFOs, controllers, finance and accounting professionals, and grant managers at nonprofits and nonprofit healthcare entities that receive grants or contributions for capital acquisitions. 

Understanding capital asset funding for nonprofits 

Capital asset funding refers to grants or contributions provided to buy, build, or improve long-term assets such as facilities, equipment, or technology. Examples of capital assets include:

• Construction to expand facilities
• Technology upgrades
• Equipment, for example, an X-ray machine

Accounting accurately for grants or contributions for capital asset purchases is particularly important because of:

• Increased funding opportunities for facility, equipment, and technology projects
• Limited room for accounting errors
• The need for accurate board reporting, grantor reporting, and financial statements
• Audit scrutiny and the potential for compliance findings

A key consideration is that the source of funding does not, by itself, determine the accounting treatment of the related expenditure. Organizations should separately evaluate the grant or contribution under applicable nonprofit accounting guidance and determine whether the underlying expenditure meets their capitalization policy.

Applicable US GAAP guidance

• ASC 958-605, Not-for-Profit Entities—Revenue Recognition: Provides guidance on accounting for contributions, including the evaluation of whether funding is conditional and whether it is donor-restricted.
• ASC 958-205, Not-for-Profit Entities—Presentation of Financial Statements: Provides guidance on the presentation of net assets and releases from donor restrictions.
• ASC 360, Property, Plant, and Equipment: Provides guidance on the accounting for long-lived assets, including capitalization and depreciation.

The accounting for the funding and the accounting for the related capital asset should be evaluated separately. ASC 958-605 addresses the grant or contribution, while ASC 360 addresses the underlying capital asset. ASC 958-205 addresses the presentation of net assets and releases from donor restrictions.

Capitalization policies 

Every organization should have a capitalization policy that provides guidelines for accounting for capital assets. The organization should first determine whether a purchase meets its definition of a capital asset and exceeds its capitalization threshold. This informs how to account for it: 

• Below the threshold: Generally, treat it as an expense.
• Above the threshold: Capitalize the asset and depreciate it over time.

The capitalization analysis should be performed consistently regardless of whether the asset is funded through a grant, contribution, debt, or the organization's operating funds.

For example, if a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) receives a grant to purchase a $100,000 piece of medical equipment and the equipment meets the organization's capitalization policy, the organization would generally record the equipment as a capital asset rather than an operating expense. The fact that grant funding was used does not change the underlying capitalization analysis.

Determining if funding is donor-restricted 

If a grant or contribution is restricted for a capital purpose, the organization should classify the funding based on the terms of the grant agreement, contract, or donor letter. The related asset should be capitalized if it meets the organization’s policy and depreciated over its useful life.

The timing of the restriction release depends on the applicable donor stipulations and the nature of the capital asset. For some capital purchases, like equipment purchases, that may occur when the asset is placed in service. For larger projects, such as construction or facility expansion, the restriction generally expires when the acquired or constructed asset is placed in service, absent donor stipulations that impose additional restrictions on the use of the asset. 
 
Projects that cross fiscal year-end require additional attention. If the asset is still under construction or not yet placed in service, the related contribution generally remains in net assets with donor restrictions until the acquired or constructed asset is placed in service, absent other applicable donor stipulations.

When the restriction expires, the organization reclassifies the related amount from net assets with donor restrictions to net assets without donor restrictions. This release is a change in net asset classification; it does not change the accounting for the underlying capital asset.

Understanding the financial statement impact

The accounting for the capital asset and the related grant or contribution should be considered separately. If the expenditure meets the organization’s capitalization policy, the purchase is recorded as a capital asset rather than an operating expense. The asset is then depreciated over its useful life.

The related grant or contribution is accounted for separately under ASC 958. When a contribution is restricted for the acquisition or construction of a long-lived asset, the contribution is generally reported as an increase in net assets with donor restrictions until the restriction expires. Once the asset is placed in service, absent additional donor stipulations, the restriction generally expires, and the related amount is reclassified to net assets without donor restrictions.

This means the release of the donor restriction should not be confused with an operating expense or with the capitalization of the underlying asset. The capital asset remains on the balance sheet, and depreciation is recognized over its useful life, while the release of the donor restriction affects the classification of net assets.

For nonprofits, understanding these separate accounting impacts is important when evaluating operating results. A significant capital purchase funded by a restricted grant may increase capital assets without creating an equivalent operating expense in the period of purchase, while the related depreciation will affect operations over subsequent periods.

Grant compliance and US GAAP

Organizations receiving federal awards should also distinguish between US GAAP accounting and grant compliance requirements. Grant requirements, including those under 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, may determine whether an expenditure is allowable under a federal award. Those requirements are separate from the organization's US GAAP accounting policies.

An expenditure may be allowable under a grant while still requiring capitalization under the organization's accounting policies. Organizations should therefore evaluate both the grant requirements and the applicable accounting guidance.

Best practices for documenting and reporting capital assets

• Review and follow grant and donor agreements carefully to identify restrictions.
• Apply your organization’s capitalization policies consistently, confirming whether purchases meet capital asset criteria and the capitalization threshold.
• Track project costs, funding sources, and asset status in the general ledger.
• Monitor projects that cross fiscal years to determine when donor restrictions may expire.
• Maintain accurate documentation for auditors, funders, and board reporting.
• Reconcile grant and contribution funding to the related capital expenditures and fixed asset records. 
• Document when capital assets are placed in service and the related expiration of donor restrictions.

About BerryDunn

BerryDunn is a full-service assurance, tax, and advisory firm serving healthcare organizations and nonprofits nationwide. We work with hospitals, health systems, FQHCs, and mission-driven organizations to navigate complex regulatory, financial, and operational environments. Our teams bring deep experience in healthcare and nonprofit audits, compliance, and governance, along with specialized grant consulting services that help organizations strengthen internal controls, manage federal funding responsibly, and remain audit-ready. Through a practical, collaborative approach, BerryDunn helps organizations protect critical funding streams and sustain their mission.