local government

Digital accessibility is more than a legal requirement—it’s about ensuring everyone can access public services, regardless of ability. As government agencies increasingly move services online, compliance with accessibility standards like the ADA’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), EAA regulations, and Section 508 is essential. 

It may seem like a complex process, but the benefits are well worth the effort. An accessible website means broader reach, better usability, and fewer barriers for the people who rely on your services. It also reduces legal risks and supports civic engagement, helping governments fulfill their mission to serve all constituents. 

With new ADA standards coming into effect, public agencies must take steps now to meet compliance deadlines. Below, you’ll find the key dates and a collection of useful resources to guide your efforts. 

Key compliance deadlines for public entities 

Government agencies must meet the following accessibility deadlines: 

• State and local governments: April 24, 2026 
• Public schools and universities: April 24, 2027 
• Municipal services and online offerings: April 24, 2027 

Helpful resources to improve accessibility 

To assist public entities in meeting compliance requirements, here are some key resources: 

• Start here if you're new to accessibility: Accessibility Fundamentals Overview | W3C 
• Review the official web rule: Federal Register: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability 
• Explore the financial and regulatory impact: Regulatory Impact Analysis | ADA 
• Find disability statistics for your state: Disability and Health Data System | CDC 
• Learn about accessibility certifications: International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP) 

Meeting these requirements will take planning and coordination, but the result is worth it. The goal is simple: an online space where every citizen can access information, complete transactions, and participate fully—without limitations. BerryDunn's government assurance team can help you at every step of the process. Learn more about our services and team. 

Anyone involved in international operations, finance, or compliance should pay attention to transfer pricing—here’s why. 

This article is the first in an article series to help businesses navigate trade strategies amidst tariff changes. Next up: The strategic advantage of foreign trade zones.  

In today's dynamic trade landscape, businesses engaged in international commerce face growing challenges. Recent shifts in US trade policy and evolving global tariff structures have added layers of complexity that companies must navigate carefully. As new regulations take shape and tariff frameworks continue to change, importers must assess their compliance strategies with heightened scrutiny. One of the most critical components of this evaluation is transfer pricing. 

What is transfer pricing? 

Transfer pricing refers to the pricing of goods, services, and intellectual property exchanged between related entities within a multinational organization. These intercompany transactions must adhere to the arm's length principle, meaning they should be priced as if the parties were unrelated. This ensures that profits are appropriately allocated among different jurisdictions and that regulatory compliance is maintained. 

While transfer pricing has traditionally been a tax-driven consideration, its intersection with customs compliance has made it even more significant for companies that import goods into the US. Understanding how transfer pricing interacts with customs valuation is essential to avoiding penalties and managing costs effectively. 

Aligning transfer pricing policies with CBP regulations 

For importers, aligning transfer pricing policies with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations is a critical step in mitigating risk. Discrepancies between tax transfer pricing and customs valuation can lead to significant consequences, including: 

• Potential penalties for misalignment between declared customs values and tax-related intercompany prices. 
• Increased duties due to incorrect customs valuation, resulting in higher operational costs. 
• Compliance risks, as evolving tariff structures demand greater accuracy in documentation and reporting. 

With trade policies fluctuating, businesses must adopt proactive strategies to help ensure their transfer pricing aligns seamlessly with customs requirements. Effective documentation and transparency can help prevent costly disputes with customs authorities while ensuring that companies can take advantage of duty-saving opportunities. 

Strategic considerations for businesses 

Managing transfer pricing effectively requires a well-defined approach that integrates both tax and customs compliance into a cohesive framework. Businesses should prioritize the following: 

• Robust documentation: Companies must maintain detailed records supporting their transfer pricing methodologies. Documentation should justify intercompany pricing decisions and demonstrate compliance with both tax and customs regulations. 
• Periodic review and adjustments: Given the volatility in global tariffs, transfer pricing policies should be reviewed regularly to ensure alignment with current trade conditions. 
• Risk mitigation strategies: Businesses should identify potential risks related to transfer pricing and customs valuation. Developing strategies that minimize exposure to financial and regulatory penalties is essential. 
• Customs valuation optimization: Many businesses overlook opportunities to optimize customs valuation. By carefully structuring intercompany transactions, organizations can identify potential duty savings while staying compliant. 

How BerryDunn can help  

Navigating transfer pricing complexities requires specialized expertise. At BerryDunn, our professionals work closely with clients to develop and document strategic transfer pricing policies that satisfy both tax and customs requirements. Our approach focuses on risk reduction, cost management, and identifying opportunities for operational efficiencies. 

We help businesses: 

• Ensure transfer pricing policies adhere to both IRS tax regulations and CBP customs valuation rules. 
• Reduce risk exposure by strengthening documentation and compliance frameworks. 
• Identify duty-saving opportunities through strategic pricing alignment. 

 With our team’s extensive experience, we guide organizations through shifting trade policies with clarity and precision. 

Let’s talk strategy 

The evolving trade environment demands proactive planning. Businesses cannot afford to be caught off guard by tariff changes and compliance challenges. By taking a strategic approach to transfer pricing, companies can turn complexity into opportunity. 

Contact our team today to discuss how we can support your transfer pricing strategy and help you stay compliant while maximizing efficiency. 

How does your nursing facility’s financial health stack up against industry peers? Benchmarking can provide you with clear, relevant comparisons that are essential to measuring and optimizing your facility’s performance. Cost data and key operating indicators from the Maine Medicaid cost reporting database provide an in-depth look at key trends for both nursing facilities and nursing facility-based residential care facilities (RCF). 

Occupancy 

For both nursing facilities and nursing facility-based RCFs, occupancy was about 90% in 2019 and through early 2020 (pre-COVID-19). Once the pandemic hit, occupancy began to decline, then dropped significantly in 2021 at the height of the crisis. By 2022, occupancy trends started to rebound, bringing nursing facilities up to nearly 82% occupancy and nursing facility-based RCFs up to about 84%. The regional average in 2023 was about 81% occupancy versus a national average of 76%. This trend continued through 2024.  

Medicaid reimbursement 

Data for 2012 – 2023, when nursing labor and occupancy significantly drove per resident day costs up, demonstrates a Medicaid shortfall for Maine nursing facilities. In 2023, the Medicaid shortfall reached $35 million, but would have nearly doubled to $65 million without supplemental payments released by Maine DHHS to help curb the impact of exponentially rising costs.  

MaineCare revenue and cost 

From 2014 – 2022, MaineCare experienced a steady rise in cost per patient day (PPD). In 2023, the allowable cost PPD hit $370 — $213 of which was direct care cost, and of that $84 was related to contract nursing. Revenue PPD was just $330. These costs are after supplemental payments and any ECA (Extraordinary Circumstances Allowance) funds were applied. The broadening gap between reimbursement rates and cost for nursing facilities is clear. 

Payer mix 

From 2019 – 2023, there was a significant shift in the payer mix for nursing facilities, with an increase in the use of Medicare Advantage and a decrease in Medicaid and Medicare A payers. This is indicative of the growing diversity in payer sources and underscores the importance of facilities understanding and adapting to the intricacies of Medicare Advantage plans, which include pre- and post-payment reviews.  

Nationally, Medicare Advantage has grown from 27% utilization by Medicare beneficiaries in 2012 to 54% in 2024, and Maine is one of seven states with more than 60% of eligible Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare Advantage plan.  

Labor trends 

The use of contract labor has been a significant source of frustration for nursing facilities, especially in Maine. Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) reporting for Maine for Q2 2024 reflects an alarming increase in the use of administrative nurses, such as nursing directors and MDS coordinators, and highlights the need to improve retention for leadership positions. Q4 2020 through Q4 2024 showed an increase in contract labor utilization for LPNs — a cost-saving measure for providing licensed nursing care.  

Data from Q4 2023 to Q2 2024 on the use of contract staff in Maine by county points to labor challenges in rural counties, while it shows facilities in more urban counties are better able to maintain staffing requirements with in-house staff. Some counties relied so heavily on contract labor that it accounted for approximately 45% of all staffed hours.  

The cost of contract labor for Maine facilities skyrocketed from its 2020 cost PPD of $25 — nearly tripling to $70 in 2023. The driving factor behind this was the increased demand for contract labor services. PBJ data for 2022 – 2024 shows a more positive trend for staff turnover despite continued challenges with contract labor. Registered nurse turnover decreased by 10% and overall staff turnover levelled off.  

Other trends 

The number of nursing facilities by fiscal year remained stable for 2020 and 2021 but began to decline steadily from 2022 – 2024. This trend can be attributed to the deepening gap between costs — both for direct care and contract labor — and reimbursement, forcing some facilities to close or convert to residential care facilities. In 2023, there were approximately 86 nursing facilities with a total of roughly 7,696 beds in Maine. 

2025 rate reform is designed to address the financial challenges of nursing facilities.  

• The transition to the pricing methodology has eliminated the cost settlement for direct and routine costs, enabling facilities to plan expenses and manage costs on known rates for the year.  
• Rate reform also includes value-based purchasing adjustments, which allow facilities to earn back a portion of their rate reduction through quality improvements or achievements.  
• The guiderails allow for potential rate adjustments of up to a 10% increase or decrease compared to prior rates, creating flexibility in the management of reimbursement rates.  

For nursing facilities seeking to improve financial operations, BerryDunn’s industry experts can assist with benchmarking by analyzing data on occupancy, Medicaid reimbursement, and contract labor to guide you to better understand how your cost and revenue drivers can lead to outcomes. Learn how to access our self-service Senior Living Benchmarking Portal for a carefully curated, comprehensive set of financial benchmarking reports. To learn more, visit berrydunn.com/stay-current. 

A financial institution’s core banking system, or core processing system, is an essential software that provides the backbone for day-to-day operations and transaction processing. Accounting for the costs of these systems can be tricky because of the complexities often involved in these contracts.  

The contracts tend to be long-term, as it would be infeasible (and undesirable) for financial institutions to have to re-negotiate and possibly switch core providers on a frequent basis. In addition, the contracts often include varying fees and provisions listed throughout the contract. The accounting team is often provided this lengthy contract and then left with the task of deciphering what is meaningful from an accounting standpoint.  

There are two key pieces of accounting guidance to consider when analyzing core contracts: 

1) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 705 – Cost of Sales and Services 

2) ASC 350-40 – Intangibles – Goodwill and Other – Internal-Use Software 

Core contracts may provide incentives or credits that can be applied against the fees charged by the core provider. According to ASC 705-20-25-1, “consideration from a vendor also includes credit or other items (for example, a coupon or voucher) that the entity can apply against amounts owed to the vendor (or to other parties that sell the goods or services to the vendor). The entity shall account for consideration from a vendor as a reduction of the purchase price of the goods or services acquired from the vendor…” 

As an example, let’s say your financial institution receives a one-time credit as part of signing a new core contract of $100,000 and the contract is to provide services to your institution over five years. This credit can be applied to future invoices received from the core provider. The contract has a monthly maintenance fee of $20,000 (likely among other charges). This credit would thus reduce the monthly maintenance expense of $20,000 to $18,333 (reduced by $100,000 divided by 60 months). This is a simple example, but hopefully, it will provide insight into the mechanics of the accounting for credits and incentives. In reality, these contracts tend to be much more complex, with variable fees and possibly even credits or incentives that can only be applied against certain fees. These credits/bonuses may not be recognized fully up front as a gain, revenue, or reduction of expense.  

There are often many fees listed in a core contract and these fees tend to be for various services related to the contract. Each fee should be considered on its own and assessed against the criteria listed in ASC 350-40-25, which establishes three project stages for internal-use software: 

1. Preliminary Project Stage. This stage may include: 

a. Conceptual formulation of alternatives 

b. Evaluation 

c. Determination 

d. Final selection 

All costs associated with the preliminary project phase shall be expensed as incurred. 

2. Application Development Stage. This stage may include: 

a. Design 

b. Coding 

c. Installation 

d. Testing 

Whether or not costs in this stage shall be expensed or capitalized is dependent on the type of cost: 

1. Costs incurred to develop internal-use software shall be capitalized. 
2. Costs to develop or obtain software that allows for access to or conversion of old data by new systems shall be capitalized. 
3. Training costs shall be expensed as incurred. 
4. Data conversion or clean-up costs shall be expensed as incurred. 
5. Postimplementation-Operation Stage. This stage may include: 

a. Training 
b. Application maintenance 

All costs associated with the post-implementation-operation stage shall be expensed as incurred. 

Costs incurred for upgrades and enhancements to internal-use software shall be expensed or capitalized in accordance with the guidance provided above. Costs incurred for maintenance shall be expensed as incurred.  

As an example in applying the above project stages, let’s say your institution has hired your core provider to develop an application programming interface (API – essentially a “bridge” between two software programs, allowing them to “talk” one another) so a new automated account reconciliation software can interface directly with your core. The core provider is charging you directly for the design of this API. These costs would be capitalized. Once designed, the core provider also provides your institution training on the API (for a fee) – these training fees would be expensed. Any internal training expenses, such as ongoing training, would be expensed as incurred. Furthermore, if your core provider charges a maintenance fee for ongoing maintenance of the API, these fees would also be expensed as incurred. 

Given these core contracts, and the fees associated with them, can be quite voluminous, it is best practice to establish a list of the services and associated fees listed in the contract. An accounting determination can then be made in accordance with ASC 705 and 350-40 and listed next to each service/fee. Such a list can also be helpful in tracking the various credits and incentives that are being provided and how much of these credits and incentives remain to be utilized by your financial institution. 

It should be noted that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has an ongoing project related to the accounting for and disclosure of software costs. More details and a current status update on the project can be found on the FASB’s website. A proposed Accounting Standards Update (ASU) was issued in October 2024. The proposed ASU would eliminate the project stages detailed above. Instead, costs would start to be capitalized when both of the following occur: 

1. Management has authorized and committed to funding the software project. 
2. It is probable that the project will be completed and the software will be used to perform the function intended (referred to as the “probable-to-complete recognition threshold”). 

Again, this is just a proposed ASU at this time and until a final ASU is issued, financial institutions should continue to follow the project stage guidance detailed above in assessing the accounting treatment for the fees in their core contracts. As always, your BerryDunn team is here to help should you have any questions! 

FINRA is launching a broad review of its regulatory requirements to modernize rules, reduce unnecessary burdens, and support innovation in financial services. This initiative aims to enhance investor protection and market integrity by adapting regulations to evolving market conditions and technological advancements.

The review will begin with two key areas:

• Capital formation: Examining how regulations impact capital acquisition brokers, “limited purpose” broker-dealer models, research analysts, and capital-raising processes
• The modern workplace: Addressing regulations related to branch offices and remote work, registered representative credentialing and education, customer communication methods, and recordkeeping practices, particularly with respect to communications.

FINRA invites member firms, investors, and stakeholders to provide feedback on other areas that may require modernization, including economic costs, technological changes, and regulatory overlaps. The comment period is open until May 12, 2025, and submissions can be made online, via email, or by mail. The Regulatory Notice lists specific questions to consider when responding.

This effort aligns with FINRA’s commitment to continuous improvement through industry engagement, ensuring that regulations remain effective, efficient, and relevant to the evolving financial landscape.

Focused on providing industry expertise and advisory relationships that extend past audit and tax seasons, BerryDunn's Financial Services team can help you enhance, grow, and adapt your operations to surpass your future goals. Learn more about our team and services.