Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (S 1383) – Also known as the SAVE America Act, this bill passed in the House on Feb. 11 but stalled in the Senate due to the Democrat filibuster. The bill would require states to verify documentary proof of citizenship and current residential address when Americans apply for federal voter registration. The easiest documentation would be a birth certificate or passport that confirms their current legal name (most women change their last name after marriage, so they require additional documentation, such as a marriage certificate). However, research from the Bipartisan Policy Center found that nearly 1 in 10 registered voters do not have access to their birth certificate, and 52 percent do not have an unexpired passport with their current legal name. Note that these registration requirements kick in any time current voters update their registration, such as for an address change or to switch political party affiliation. The bill also requires a specific type of photo ID to cast a ballot. A driver’s license is acceptable, but not student IDs or a tribal ID that lacks an expiration date (which tribal IDs do not contain). The president is also insistent that the legislation include unrelated restrictions for transgender Americans. The debate over this bill continues in the Senate.
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026 (HR 7744) – This is the bill that has held up appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2026. The bill was introduced by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) on March 2 and passed in the House on March 5. However, it triggered a partial government shutdown and is under heated debate in the Senate. Republicans insist on passing the complete bill with increased funding for national security and border protection. The legislation also includes provisions prohibiting funds for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Critical Theory programs, as well as abortions and gender-affirming care for ICE detainees. Senate Democrats are seeking to include guardrails that would prohibit ICE agents from wearing masks or entering homes, schools, hospitals, etc., without a judicial warrant. Currently at a stalemate, Republicans will likely try to pass funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), more money for ICE, and components of the Save America Act through a budget reconciliation bill.
Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act (S 3971) – On March 3, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) introduced this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs. These programs, also known as America’s Seed Fund, expired last September. The new bill enables certain agencies to award a portion of their funds to larger projects focused on technology transition, rather than incremental R&D. These agencies, which include the Departments of Defense, Energy and Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, may award up to $30 million to small business projects that prioritize national security, customer demand and undercapitalized technology areas. The bill passed in the Senate on March 3, the House on March 17, and was signed into law by the president on April 13.
Tyler’s Law (S 921) – The purpose of this bill is to issue guidance for hospital emergency departments to implement fentanyl testing as a routine procedure for patients experiencing an overdose. The current standard procedure tests for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, PCP, and natural and semisynthetic opioids, but not synthetic opioids like fentanyl – something many ER practitioners are unaware of. The bill is named for Tyler Shamash, a California teenager who died of an overdose after he passed a drug test in an emergency room that did not include fentanyl. The bipartisan bill was introduced by Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN) on March 10, 2025. It passed in the Senate on March 23, 2026, and is currently awaiting a vote in the House.
To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for Temporary Protected Status (HR 1689) – This bill was introduced on Feb. 27, 2025, and passed in the House on April 16, 2026. Amid rampant immigration enforcement, this bill is designed to extend temporary protected status for Haitian migrants through 2029. TPS is intended to provide a safe haven for foreign nationals whose home countries are experiencing temporary unsafe conditions, such as from a natural disaster or civil unrest, for which Haitians continue to qualify. This largely partisan legislation faces an uphill battle in the Senate, as well as a likely veto by the president. In February, the president revoked TPS status for approximately 330,000 Haitians in the United States. However, enforcement of that order is currently halted, and its constitutionality is under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Stalemates in Voting Rights and ICE Legislation; Small Business Funding Expanded
May 1, 2026 · Blog, Congress at Work, News
⏱ 4 min read
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (S 1383) – Also known as the SAVE America Act, this bill passed in the House on Feb. 11 but stalled in the Senate due to the Democrat filibuster. The bill would require states to verify documentary proof of citizenship and current residential address when Americans apply for federal voter registration. The easiest documentation would be a birth certificate or passport that confirms their current legal name (most women change their last name after marriage, so they require additional documentation, such as a marriage certificate). However, research from the Bipartisan Policy Center found that nearly 1 in 10 registered voters do not have access to their birth certificate, and 52 percent do not have an unexpired passport with their current legal name. Note that these registration requirements kick in any time current voters update their registration, such as for an address change or to switch political party affiliation. The bill also requires a specific type of photo ID to cast a ballot. A driver’s license is acceptable, but not student IDs or a tribal ID that lacks an expiration date (which tribal IDs do not contain). The president is also insistent that the legislation include unrelated restrictions for transgender Americans. The debate over this bill continues in the Senate.
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026 (HR 7744) – This is the bill that has held up appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2026. The bill was introduced by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) on March 2 and passed in the House on March 5. However, it triggered a partial government shutdown and is under heated debate in the Senate. Republicans insist on passing the complete bill with increased funding for national security and border protection. The legislation also includes provisions prohibiting funds for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Critical Theory programs, as well as abortions and gender-affirming care for ICE detainees. Senate Democrats are seeking to include guardrails that would prohibit ICE agents from wearing masks or entering homes, schools, hospitals, etc., without a judicial warrant. Currently at a stalemate, Republicans will likely try to pass funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), more money for ICE, and components of the Save America Act through a budget reconciliation bill.
Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act (S 3971) – On March 3, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) introduced this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs. These programs, also known as America’s Seed Fund, expired last September. The new bill enables certain agencies to award a portion of their funds to larger projects focused on technology transition, rather than incremental R&D. These agencies, which include the Departments of Defense, Energy and Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, may award up to $30 million to small business projects that prioritize national security, customer demand and undercapitalized technology areas. The bill passed in the Senate on March 3, the House on March 17, and was signed into law by the president on April 13.
Tyler’s Law (S 921) – The purpose of this bill is to issue guidance for hospital emergency departments to implement fentanyl testing as a routine procedure for patients experiencing an overdose. The current standard procedure tests for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, PCP, and natural and semisynthetic opioids, but not synthetic opioids like fentanyl – something many ER practitioners are unaware of. The bill is named for Tyler Shamash, a California teenager who died of an overdose after he passed a drug test in an emergency room that did not include fentanyl. The bipartisan bill was introduced by Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN) on March 10, 2025. It passed in the Senate on March 23, 2026, and is currently awaiting a vote in the House.
To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for Temporary Protected Status (HR 1689) – This bill was introduced on Feb. 27, 2025, and passed in the House on April 16, 2026. Amid rampant immigration enforcement, this bill is designed to extend temporary protected status for Haitian migrants through 2029. TPS is intended to provide a safe haven for foreign nationals whose home countries are experiencing temporary unsafe conditions, such as from a natural disaster or civil unrest, for which Haitians continue to qualify. This largely partisan legislation faces an uphill battle in the Senate, as well as a likely veto by the president. In February, the president revoked TPS status for approximately 330,000 Haitians in the United States. However, enforcement of that order is currently halted, and its constitutionality is under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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.
Businesses are moving beyond basic automation into a new era of intelligent, self-directed systems. While automation helps with streamlining repetitive tasks, agentic AI workflows enable systems to make decisions, take action, and continuously improve with minimal human oversight.
Most businesses adopting agentic AI have no structured way to prove it is working. Although they can feel the difference, they can’t measure it. Without measurement, return on investment (ROI) conversations stall, budgets get cut, and genuinely transformative tools get shelved.
What Makes Agentic AI Workflows Different
Agentic AI workflows are designed to operate with a degree of independence. Unlike traditional automation, which follows predefined rules, agentic systems are goal-oriented.
Once given an objective, they plan, execute, adjust, and complete tasks across multiple steps, tools, and decisions without requiring human intervention. For example, an agentic workflow may pull data from multiple systems, analyze it, draft a report, flag anomalies, and email a summary.
Another example is a supply chain AI agent that not only highlights anomalies but can also reorder stock, renegotiate pricing thresholds, and even reroute logistics as these actions fall within predefined objectives.
Agentic AI can also improve efficiency and productivity by identifying inefficiencies in workflows and adjusting them in real time.
For businesses facing rising labor costs and increasing demand for speed and personalization, this evolution is more than a technological advancement. It offers a strategic advantage.
Why ROI Measurement Is Different for Agentic AI
Traditional ROI models are rather straightforward as they compare the cost of a system to the output generated. ROI on projects using traditional models is measured based on cost savings, headcount reduction and cycle-time compression. However, agentic AI is more dynamic because the systems improve over time. This means the output isn’t static – rather, it compounds. These systems also reduce the need for ongoing supervision, operate continuously, and often uncover efficiencies that were not initially anticipated.
As a result, the ROI of agentic AI is not just immediate cost savings but also includes long-term gains. These gains include improved decision-making, faster execution, higher productivity, strategic agility and the ability to scale operations without a proportional increase in cost. Measuring this kind of value requires a broader, more forward-looking approach.
Key ROI Drivers of Agentic AI workflows
Operational efficiency – unlike conventional automation that is vulnerable to dynamic environments due to fixed rules, agentic AI responds to changes automatically. These systems continuously learn and optimize, delivering ongoing improvements without additional manual effort.
Real-time responsiveness – customers expect real-time interaction. Agentic workflows enable this through systems that are always on and context-aware.
Scalability – businesses can handle increased demand without a corresponding increase in operational costs or headcount, allowing more efficient growth.
Cross-departmental reach – Agentic AI agents can seamlessly connect workflows across different departments like HR, IT, and finance. This reduces operational friction between teams and enhances overall efficiency.
Productivity gains – Agentic AI can operate 24/7, completing tasks faster and with greater consistency than human teams. This allows employees to focus on higher-value work, increasing overall organizational productivity.
Cost reduction – by automating complex workflows, businesses can reduce reliance on manual labor, minimize errors, and eliminate inefficiencies. This can translate into significant savings.
Revenue growth – Agentic AI enables faster go-to-market strategies and more personalized customer experiences. This can directly impact conversion rates and revenue.
Improved decision quality – With access to real-time data and advanced analytics, agentic AI systems can make quick, informed decisions. This reduces human bias and enhances accuracy in areas like forecasting, inventory management, and customer engagement.
Strategies for Evaluating Agentic AI ROI
To measure agentic AI ROI, businesses need a structured approach that connects AI deployment to business outcomes.
Identify high-impact workflows – repetitive, resource-heavy processes like IT support, sales operations, or compliance.
Establish baseline measurements by documenting current costs, completion times, error rates, and headcount before deployment.
Compare pre- and post-implementation performance by checking utilization rates, tasks completed, and infrastructure costs to confirm operational sustainability.
Estimate agentic impact by projecting improvements in speed, cost, throughput, and quality.
If implementing agentic AI in phases, use control groups to isolate its impact from other organizational changes.
Measure real business outcomes, including cost reductions, revenue growth, and productivity gains.
Conclusion
Traditional automation delivered value by reducing manual effort. Agentic AI, on the other hand, reduces decision latency, operational friction, and coordination costs. Therefore, AI agents’ ROI is not defined by savings alone. Its real value lies in the ability to generate compounding returns across multiple dimensions of a business. By adopting a broader view of ROI, organizations can better assess impact, build stronger adoption cases, and identify new opportunities for optimization.
The ROI of Autonomy: Measuring the Business Value of Agentic AI Workflows
May 1, 2026 · Blog, News, What's New in Technology
⏱ 4 min read
Businesses are moving beyond basic automation into a new era of intelligent, self-directed systems. While automation helps with streamlining repetitive tasks, agentic AI workflows enable systems to make decisions, take action, and continuously improve with minimal human oversight.
Most businesses adopting agentic AI have no structured way to prove it is working. Although they can feel the difference, they can’t measure it. Without measurement, return on investment (ROI) conversations stall, budgets get cut, and genuinely transformative tools get shelved.
What Makes Agentic AI Workflows Different
Agentic AI workflows are designed to operate with a degree of independence. Unlike traditional automation, which follows predefined rules, agentic systems are goal-oriented.
Once given an objective, they plan, execute, adjust, and complete tasks across multiple steps, tools, and decisions without requiring human intervention. For example, an agentic workflow may pull data from multiple systems, analyze it, draft a report, flag anomalies, and email a summary.
Another example is a supply chain AI agent that not only highlights anomalies but can also reorder stock, renegotiate pricing thresholds, and even reroute logistics as these actions fall within predefined objectives.
Agentic AI can also improve efficiency and productivity by identifying inefficiencies in workflows and adjusting them in real time.
For businesses facing rising labor costs and increasing demand for speed and personalization, this evolution is more than a technological advancement. It offers a strategic advantage.
Why ROI Measurement Is Different for Agentic AI
Traditional ROI models are rather straightforward as they compare the cost of a system to the output generated. ROI on projects using traditional models is measured based on cost savings, headcount reduction and cycle-time compression. However, agentic AI is more dynamic because the systems improve over time. This means the output isn’t static – rather, it compounds. These systems also reduce the need for ongoing supervision, operate continuously, and often uncover efficiencies that were not initially anticipated.
As a result, the ROI of agentic AI is not just immediate cost savings but also includes long-term gains. These gains include improved decision-making, faster execution, higher productivity, strategic agility and the ability to scale operations without a proportional increase in cost. Measuring this kind of value requires a broader, more forward-looking approach.
Key ROI Drivers of Agentic AI workflows
Operational efficiency – unlike conventional automation that is vulnerable to dynamic environments due to fixed rules, agentic AI responds to changes automatically. These systems continuously learn and optimize, delivering ongoing improvements without additional manual effort.
Real-time responsiveness – customers expect real-time interaction. Agentic workflows enable this through systems that are always on and context-aware.
Scalability – businesses can handle increased demand without a corresponding increase in operational costs or headcount, allowing more efficient growth.
Cross-departmental reach – Agentic AI agents can seamlessly connect workflows across different departments like HR, IT, and finance. This reduces operational friction between teams and enhances overall efficiency.
Productivity gains – Agentic AI can operate 24/7, completing tasks faster and with greater consistency than human teams. This allows employees to focus on higher-value work, increasing overall organizational productivity.
Cost reduction – by automating complex workflows, businesses can reduce reliance on manual labor, minimize errors, and eliminate inefficiencies. This can translate into significant savings.
Revenue growth – Agentic AI enables faster go-to-market strategies and more personalized customer experiences. This can directly impact conversion rates and revenue.
Improved decision quality – With access to real-time data and advanced analytics, agentic AI systems can make quick, informed decisions. This reduces human bias and enhances accuracy in areas like forecasting, inventory management, and customer engagement.
Strategies for Evaluating Agentic AI ROI
To measure agentic AI ROI, businesses need a structured approach that connects AI deployment to business outcomes.
Identify high-impact workflows – repetitive, resource-heavy processes like IT support, sales operations, or compliance.
Establish baseline measurements by documenting current costs, completion times, error rates, and headcount before deployment.
Compare pre- and post-implementation performance by checking utilization rates, tasks completed, and infrastructure costs to confirm operational sustainability.
Estimate agentic impact by projecting improvements in speed, cost, throughput, and quality.
If implementing agentic AI in phases, use control groups to isolate its impact from other organizational changes.
Measure real business outcomes, including cost reductions, revenue growth, and productivity gains.
Conclusion
Traditional automation delivered value by reducing manual effort. Agentic AI, on the other hand, reduces decision latency, operational friction, and coordination costs. Therefore, AI agents’ ROI is not defined by savings alone. Its real value lies in the ability to generate compounding returns across multiple dimensions of a business. By adopting a broader view of ROI, organizations can better assess impact, build stronger adoption cases, and identify new opportunities for optimization.
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.
If the IRS sends notice that you’re being audited, you’re likely to become anxious. However, not all audits mean you did something wrong. In most cases, it is simply a matter of verifying information on a tax return or perhaps correcting a minor error. Knowing what to expect – and how to respond – can help alleviate stress and make the audit more manageable.
An IRS audit (also referred to as an examination) is a review of your records to confirm that the information on your tax return was reported accurately and follows tax law. The best way to prepare for an audit is to respond on time, present organized and complete records, be cooperative, and communicate professionally.
Technically, most audits are triggered via an automated scoring system referred to as the DIF, which stands for Discriminant Information Function. The system flags something on your tax return that stood out. This could be inconsistencies, missing income, unusually high deductions, or inputs that don’t match information the IRS already has. Here are three key facts about IRS timing for audits:
The IRS generally looks back three years based on the statute of limitations
Most audits are related to returns filed within the past two years
In cases of substantial errors, audits can extend up to the last six years, especially in cases where it is believed that more than 25 percent of gross income was omitted from the filing
There is no statute of limitations in cases of fraud or failure to file
The Audit Process
Almost all IRS audits start with a letter stating that your return has been selected for examination. This notice will be sent by mail – not a phone call, text, or email. The letter will include the name of your assigned reviewer, his or her IRS identification number, and phone number. You should call the IRS directly to verify this information, as scammers are known to impersonate the IRS to steal money or personal data.
You may be asked to provide a variety of specific documents based on what issue(s) triggered the audit. Be sure to provide copies, not originals. Depending on your situation, the requested documents could include:
Income records
Investment statements
Bank forms
Receipts and bills
Canceled checks
Legal documents (such as divorce or custody agreements)
Loan agreements and settlement statements
Travel logs, diaries, or ticket stubs
Medical and dental records
Theft or loss of documentation (insurance claims, photos, police reports)
Employment records
Schedule K-1 forms for partnerships or S corporations
The following are the three types of IRS Audits:
Correspondence Audit – These are the least complex and are conducted entirely by mail. Sometimes the IRS simply identifies a math error or missing income and asks for payment or clarification. You can either pay the amount due or respond with documentation if you believe the IRS is incorrect.
Office Audit – An office audit requires you to visit an IRS office with the requested records. You will receive an Information Document Request (IDR) form detailing what to bring. Showing up with organized records can help resolve these audits quickly.
Field Audit – The field audit is the most extensive. An IRS agent will come to your home or business to review records. Although you will receive an IDR in advance, the agent may decide to escalate the review if he notices any “large, unusual or questionable” (LUQ) items.
The key points to remember are that poor recordkeeping and/or lack of cooperation tend to trigger a more detailed and time-consuming audit.
Once the Audit Is Complete
After the audit, the IRS will issue a report describing its findings. It may determine that no changes are necessary to your return; that you owe additional tax; or that you may be owed a refund. Should you disagree with the findings, you have options:
Request to meet with an IRS manager
Use mediation or alternative dispute resolution
File an appeal with the IRS
Take the case to court if necessary
If you agree with the audit findings, you’ll need to sign the examination report and choose from various payment options if you owe any taxes.
What to Expect with an IRS Audit
May 1, 2026 · Blog, Financial Planning, News
⏱ 4 min read
If the IRS sends notice that you’re being audited, you’re likely to become anxious. However, not all audits mean you did something wrong. In most cases, it is simply a matter of verifying information on a tax return or perhaps correcting a minor error. Knowing what to expect – and how to respond – can help alleviate stress and make the audit more manageable.
An IRS audit (also referred to as an examination) is a review of your records to confirm that the information on your tax return was reported accurately and follows tax law. The best way to prepare for an audit is to respond on time, present organized and complete records, be cooperative, and communicate professionally.
Technically, most audits are triggered via an automated scoring system referred to as the DIF, which stands for Discriminant Information Function. The system flags something on your tax return that stood out. This could be inconsistencies, missing income, unusually high deductions, or inputs that don’t match information the IRS already has. Here are three key facts about IRS timing for audits:
The IRS generally looks back three years based on the statute of limitations
Most audits are related to returns filed within the past two years
In cases of substantial errors, audits can extend up to the last six years, especially in cases where it is believed that more than 25 percent of gross income was omitted from the filing
There is no statute of limitations in cases of fraud or failure to file
The Audit Process
Almost all IRS audits start with a letter stating that your return has been selected for examination. This notice will be sent by mail – not a phone call, text, or email. The letter will include the name of your assigned reviewer, his or her IRS identification number, and phone number. You should call the IRS directly to verify this information, as scammers are known to impersonate the IRS to steal money or personal data.
You may be asked to provide a variety of specific documents based on what issue(s) triggered the audit. Be sure to provide copies, not originals. Depending on your situation, the requested documents could include:
Income records
Investment statements
Bank forms
Receipts and bills
Canceled checks
Legal documents (such as divorce or custody agreements)
Loan agreements and settlement statements
Travel logs, diaries, or ticket stubs
Medical and dental records
Theft or loss of documentation (insurance claims, photos, police reports)
Employment records
Schedule K-1 forms for partnerships or S corporations
The following are the three types of IRS Audits:
Correspondence Audit – These are the least complex and are conducted entirely by mail. Sometimes the IRS simply identifies a math error or missing income and asks for payment or clarification. You can either pay the amount due or respond with documentation if you believe the IRS is incorrect.
Office Audit – An office audit requires you to visit an IRS office with the requested records. You will receive an Information Document Request (IDR) form detailing what to bring. Showing up with organized records can help resolve these audits quickly.
Field Audit – The field audit is the most extensive. An IRS agent will come to your home or business to review records. Although you will receive an IDR in advance, the agent may decide to escalate the review if he notices any “large, unusual or questionable” (LUQ) items.
The key points to remember are that poor recordkeeping and/or lack of cooperation tend to trigger a more detailed and time-consuming audit.
Once the Audit Is Complete
After the audit, the IRS will issue a report describing its findings. It may determine that no changes are necessary to your return; that you owe additional tax; or that you may be owed a refund. Should you disagree with the findings, you have options:
Request to meet with an IRS manager
Use mediation or alternative dispute resolution
File an appeal with the IRS
Take the case to court if necessary
If you agree with the audit findings, you’ll need to sign the examination report and choose from various payment options if you owe any taxes.
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.
When it comes to raw materials, especially for fossil fuels, it’s essential to evaluate existing and potential production capabilities for such companies. Using the EV/2P Ratio is a powerful tool when evaluating fossil fuel-related companies.
Defining the Ratio
This ratio is calculated by dividing a business’ enterprise value into the company’s reserves. It provides financial analysts, investors and internal business stakeholders with a snapshot of a company’s reserves and the business’ likelihood of preserving operation growth. This standardizes valuations, thereby allowing analysts to compare company-to-company financials.
How to Calculate EV/2P
Enterprise Value (EV) / Total 2P Reserves
Defined as: Enterprise Value = Equity (open market price) + Debt (open market price) – Cash and Cash Equivalents
2P = Proven and Probable Reserves
Illustrating the Calculation
If a company’s capitalization is $300 million and debt consisting of $225 million, along with $30 million for proven reserve value, $20 million in probable reserves, and $25 million in possible reserves, the company’s resulting enterprise value becomes:
$300 million + $225 million = $525 million
The 2P reserves is:
$30 million + $20 million = $50 million
Plugging the numbers into the original formula, it’s: $525 million / $50 million = 10.5x (multiple)
Based on the resulting 10.5 multiple, this ratio provides a current valuation that translates to for every $1 in 2P reserves equals $10.50 of a market valuation.
Reserves are how internal/external stakeholders value the production/growth potential of oil/gas companies. It’s broken down into two categories:
1.) P1 are proven reserves, which are the highest caliber reserves. There’s at least a 9 in 10 percent likelihood (or more) of recoverable reserves. It’s also known as P90.
2.) Probable reserve (also known as P50) has an even chance of either non-recoverability or realized recoverability. This is the next best, but a lesser grade than P1.
These two resource categories are referred to as 2P.
Putting it in Perspective
Depending on the company’s calculated EV/2P Ratio, the business owner or investor can determine a course of action to take.
If it’s higher, it’s more highly valued than its competitors based on the same level of 2P reserves; therefore, the company’s shares are more expensive against its peers. This can give investors pause because other undervalued stocks are more attractive due to a higher likelihood they’ll appreciate.
However, if a company is valued higher, but the company is more efficient or a higher performer, investors also may be interested because its production and earnings justify the higher valuation. That’s why looking at the metric in a silo is not effective.
Debt Concerns
When it comes to debt and analyzing this ratio, fossil fuel businesses are often highly levered since they use massive sums of debt for research and development and continued operations.
Since the EV value looks at debt and equity concurrently, analyzing a company’s capital structure is essential when comparing companies’ valuations. Essentially, if a company has too much debt and if interest rates suddenly increase or it can’t service debt if the price of crude plummets, it may run into debt servicing issues.
While this ratio is effective in providing a level playing field for analytical uses, it’s important to remember that it needs to be used in conjunction with comprehensive financial analysis.
Version 6
Understanding the EV/2P Ratio
May 1, 2026 · Blog, General Business News, News
⏱ 3 min read
When it comes to raw materials, especially for fossil fuels, it’s essential to evaluate existing and potential production capabilities for such companies. Using the EV/2P Ratio is a powerful tool when evaluating fossil fuel-related companies.
Defining the Ratio
This ratio is calculated by dividing a business’ enterprise value into the company’s reserves. It provides financial analysts, investors and internal business stakeholders with a snapshot of a company’s reserves and the business’ likelihood of preserving operation growth. This standardizes valuations, thereby allowing analysts to compare company-to-company financials.
How to Calculate EV/2P
Enterprise Value (EV) / Total 2P Reserves
Defined as: Enterprise Value = Equity (open market price) + Debt (open market price) – Cash and Cash Equivalents
2P = Proven and Probable Reserves
Illustrating the Calculation
If a company’s capitalization is $300 million and debt consisting of $225 million, along with $30 million for proven reserve value, $20 million in probable reserves, and $25 million in possible reserves, the company’s resulting enterprise value becomes:
$300 million + $225 million = $525 million
The 2P reserves is:
$30 million + $20 million = $50 million
Plugging the numbers into the original formula, it’s: $525 million / $50 million = 10.5x (multiple)
Based on the resulting 10.5 multiple, this ratio provides a current valuation that translates to for every $1 in 2P reserves equals $10.50 of a market valuation.
Reserves are how internal/external stakeholders value the production/growth potential of oil/gas companies. It’s broken down into two categories:
1.) P1 are proven reserves, which are the highest caliber reserves. There’s at least a 9 in 10 percent likelihood (or more) of recoverable reserves. It’s also known as P90.
2.) Probable reserve (also known as P50) has an even chance of either non-recoverability or realized recoverability. This is the next best, but a lesser grade than P1.
These two resource categories are referred to as 2P.
Putting it in Perspective
Depending on the company’s calculated EV/2P Ratio, the business owner or investor can determine a course of action to take.
If it’s higher, it’s more highly valued than its competitors based on the same level of 2P reserves; therefore, the company’s shares are more expensive against its peers. This can give investors pause because other undervalued stocks are more attractive due to a higher likelihood they’ll appreciate.
However, if a company is valued higher, but the company is more efficient or a higher performer, investors also may be interested because its production and earnings justify the higher valuation. That’s why looking at the metric in a silo is not effective.
Debt Concerns
When it comes to debt and analyzing this ratio, fossil fuel businesses are often highly levered since they use massive sums of debt for research and development and continued operations.
Since the EV value looks at debt and equity concurrently, analyzing a company’s capital structure is essential when comparing companies’ valuations. Essentially, if a company has too much debt and if interest rates suddenly increase or it can’t service debt if the price of crude plummets, it may run into debt servicing issues.
While this ratio is effective in providing a level playing field for analytical uses, it’s important to remember that it needs to be used in conjunction with comprehensive financial analysis.
Version 6
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.
Artificial intelligence is driving an unprecedented surge in data center construction. Developers, private equity sponsors and their tax advisors are navigating a complicated web of questions that touch everything from ownership structure to site selection to power sourcing. Get the early decisions wrong and the tax consequences can follow a project for years.
Why REITs Have Become the Structure of Choice
Private equity has increasingly turned to real estate investment trusts when backing data center projects. Structure a REIT correctly, and you sidestep corporate-level taxation entirely. Foreign investors get an even better deal. Sovereign wealth funds and foreign pension funds can participate without any obligation to file U.S. tax returns. Data centers, with their heavy real estate footprint, slot into the REIT framework more naturally than many other asset classes.
That said, the fit is not seamless. Related party rent rules create traps for the unwary. Public pension funds and sovereign wealth funds need to confirm they do not hold stakes in both a data center REIT and its tenant. Another wrinkle involves equipment. Data centers demand significant upfront investment in personal property that may not count as qualifying REIT assets. The tax code requires that 75 percent of a REIT’s total asset value consist of real estate, cash, and government securities at each quarter’s close. Developers often must segregate personal property until the REIT builds up enough good assets to clear that hurdle.
The Power and Water Challenge
Reliable power and water access have become one of the toughest operational problems in the industry. Demand is so intense that many developers are generating their own electricity on-site. The tax treatment of these co-located power facilities depends heavily on the energy source and delivery method. Get it wrong, and the generation asset may not qualify for REIT treatment.
Solar photovoltaic systems sit on relatively solid ground under existing guidance. Nuclear and natural gas, which many see as the next wave of data center power, do not. Current rules leave significant uncertainty around whether these sources can work within a REIT structure.
Legislative and Executive Developments
The IRS priority guidance plan for 2025 and 2026 contains no projects aimed squarely at data centers. Regulation section 1.856-10(g), finalized in 2016, includes an example analyzing customized electrical and telecommunications systems in a data center context, but practitioners continue pushing for clearer rules on alternative energy.
Congress may offer relief on the waterfront. In April 2025, Representative Darin LaHood of Illinois proposed a new section 48F that would provide a 30 percent credit for qualifying water reuse projects, including on-site recycling systems at data centers. With U.S. data centers projected to consume 33 billion gallons of water by 2028, the bill attracted 21 cosponsors and bipartisan support.
The White House has made its priorities clear as well. The Trump administration’s July 2025 AI action plan established a goal of achieving global dominance in artificial intelligence, with infrastructure as one of three pillars. An executive order, issued July 23, 2025, focused specifically on reducing federal regulatory obstacles to data center construction.
Conclusion and OBBBA Incentives Worth Watching
Several provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act benefit data center projects, even though lawmakers did not design them with that sector in mind. The return of 100 percent bonus depreciation under section 168(k) matters enormously for an industry requiring massive capital outlays.
Rural Opportunity Zones sweeten the economics further. Investments in qualified rural opportunity funds now qualify for a 30 percent basis step-up after five years, triple the 10 percent available in standard zones. A special rule targeting improvements to existing structures in rural areas cuts the substantial improvement threshold to 50 percent of adjusted basis, compared to more than 100 percent for non-rural funds.
Developers and investors evaluating new projects will find that entity structure, site selection, and the shifting regulatory environment all interact in ways that directly affect the bottom line. Getting the tax picture right from the start remains essential.
Tax Considerations for Data Center Projects in the Age of AI
May 1, 2026 · Blog, News, Tax and Financial News
⏱ 4 min read
Artificial intelligence is driving an unprecedented surge in data center construction. Developers, private equity sponsors and their tax advisors are navigating a complicated web of questions that touch everything from ownership structure to site selection to power sourcing. Get the early decisions wrong and the tax consequences can follow a project for years.
Why REITs Have Become the Structure of Choice
Private equity has increasingly turned to real estate investment trusts when backing data center projects. Structure a REIT correctly, and you sidestep corporate-level taxation entirely. Foreign investors get an even better deal. Sovereign wealth funds and foreign pension funds can participate without any obligation to file U.S. tax returns. Data centers, with their heavy real estate footprint, slot into the REIT framework more naturally than many other asset classes.
That said, the fit is not seamless. Related party rent rules create traps for the unwary. Public pension funds and sovereign wealth funds need to confirm they do not hold stakes in both a data center REIT and its tenant. Another wrinkle involves equipment. Data centers demand significant upfront investment in personal property that may not count as qualifying REIT assets. The tax code requires that 75 percent of a REIT’s total asset value consist of real estate, cash, and government securities at each quarter’s close. Developers often must segregate personal property until the REIT builds up enough good assets to clear that hurdle.
The Power and Water Challenge
Reliable power and water access have become one of the toughest operational problems in the industry. Demand is so intense that many developers are generating their own electricity on-site. The tax treatment of these co-located power facilities depends heavily on the energy source and delivery method. Get it wrong, and the generation asset may not qualify for REIT treatment.
Solar photovoltaic systems sit on relatively solid ground under existing guidance. Nuclear and natural gas, which many see as the next wave of data center power, do not. Current rules leave significant uncertainty around whether these sources can work within a REIT structure.
Legislative and Executive Developments
The IRS priority guidance plan for 2025 and 2026 contains no projects aimed squarely at data centers. Regulation section 1.856-10(g), finalized in 2016, includes an example analyzing customized electrical and telecommunications systems in a data center context, but practitioners continue pushing for clearer rules on alternative energy.
Congress may offer relief on the waterfront. In April 2025, Representative Darin LaHood of Illinois proposed a new section 48F that would provide a 30 percent credit for qualifying water reuse projects, including on-site recycling systems at data centers. With U.S. data centers projected to consume 33 billion gallons of water by 2028, the bill attracted 21 cosponsors and bipartisan support.
The White House has made its priorities clear as well. The Trump administration’s July 2025 AI action plan established a goal of achieving global dominance in artificial intelligence, with infrastructure as one of three pillars. An executive order, issued July 23, 2025, focused specifically on reducing federal regulatory obstacles to data center construction.
Conclusion and OBBBA Incentives Worth Watching
Several provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act benefit data center projects, even though lawmakers did not design them with that sector in mind. The return of 100 percent bonus depreciation under section 168(k) matters enormously for an industry requiring massive capital outlays.
Rural Opportunity Zones sweeten the economics further. Investments in qualified rural opportunity funds now qualify for a 30 percent basis step-up after five years, triple the 10 percent available in standard zones. A special rule targeting improvements to existing structures in rural areas cuts the substantial improvement threshold to 50 percent of adjusted basis, compared to more than 100 percent for non-rural funds.
Developers and investors evaluating new projects will find that entity structure, site selection, and the shifting regulatory environment all interact in ways that directly affect the bottom line. Getting the tax picture right from the start remains essential.
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, it’s used with the customer lifetime value (LTV) metric, which 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
Where: 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 a return on investment on their expenditures and outcomes. For example, there could be multiple channels that sales and marketing utilize 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 either need to be discontinued or modified. Internal stakeholders and external investors (both existing and potential) can look at trends to see 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 whether 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 time frames 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.
Understanding the Customer Acquisition Cost
May 1, 2026 · Accounting News, Blog, News
⏱ 3 min read
The Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) measures how much a company spends to obtain new, additional customers. Oftentimes, it’s used with the customer lifetime value (LTV) metric, which 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
Where: 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 a return on investment on their expenditures and outcomes. For example, there could be multiple channels that sales and marketing utilize 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 either need to be discontinued or modified. Internal stakeholders and external investors (both existing and potential) can look at trends to see 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 whether 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 time frames 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.
Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the DC Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025 (HJRes 142) – After passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the Council of the District of Columbia (DC) opted out of the tax code from the Act, amending several provisions and restoring the DC child tax credit. This resolution nullifies DC’s amended legislation. It was introduced on Jan. 22 by Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX). It passed in the House on Feb. 4, the Senate on Feb. 12, and was enacted on Feb. 18.
Semiquincentennial Congressional Time Capsule Act (S 3705) – This bill instructs the Architect of the Capitol to bury a time capsule in the Capitol Visitor Center (on or before July 4, 2026) as part of this year’s 250th anniversary celebration of the nation’s founding. The purpose of the capsule is to represent legislative milestones to date via a joint letter to the future Congress by the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the House. The time capsule is meant to remain there until July 4, 2276, the nation’s 500th anniversary. The legislation was introduced by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) on Jan. 27. It passed the Senate on Jan. 27, the House on Feb. 9, and was signed into law by the president on Feb. 18.
Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025 (S 3424) – This Act was introduced by Rep. Christopher Coons (D-DE) on Dec. 10, 2025, and passed in the Senate on the same day. It cleared the House on Jan. 12 and was signed into law on Feb. 6. The bill makes alterations to the administration of bankruptcy cases by increasing fees paid to trustees in Chapter 7 (liquidation) cases, and extends by five years the fees paid to trustees in Chapter 11 (reorganization) cases. It also extends the term of bankruptcy judgeships in various districts, as well as other provisions.
Ending Improper Payments to Deceased People Act (S 269) – This legislation requires the Social Security Administration (SSA) to share its death records with the Treasury Department in order to prevent improper payments to deceased individuals. In the past, this bill had to be extended every three years, but the new bill makes the requirement permanent. The bill was introduced by Sen. John Kennedy (R-TN) on Jan. 28, 2025. It passed unanimously in the Senate on Sept. 19, 2025, cleared the House on Jan. 13, and was enacted on Feb. 10.
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (S 1383) – This controversial voting bill passed in the House on Feb. 11. The Republicans in the Senate have secured 50 votes for passage, but the bill requires 60. The provisions in the current bill include requiring:
Each state is to submit full voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for verification of citizenship via its SAVE system, which has historically had a high error rate of flagging citizens as non-citizens.
Voter roll purges every 30 days and end the 90-day quiet period that allows voters mistakenly purged time to re-register before Election Day.
New or changing voter registrants to show proof of U.S. citizenship (birth certificate or passport; five states already meet this requirement for a Real ID driver’s license).
Voters to show photo ID at polls in order to vote (38 states already require this)
A ban on automatically mailing ballots to all voters (currently used by eight states and DC); voters would have to send individual requests to receive a mail ballot.
Democrats in the Senate have vowed to block passage via filibuster.
Burying Time Capsules, Ending Payments to Dead People, and Safeguarding Voting Rights for U.S. Citizens
March 1, 2026 · Blog, Congress at Work, News
⏱ 3 min read
Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the DC Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025 (HJRes 142) – After passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the Council of the District of Columbia (DC) opted out of the tax code from the Act, amending several provisions and restoring the DC child tax credit. This resolution nullifies DC’s amended legislation. It was introduced on Jan. 22 by Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX). It passed in the House on Feb. 4, the Senate on Feb. 12, and was enacted on Feb. 18.
Semiquincentennial Congressional Time Capsule Act (S 3705) – This bill instructs the Architect of the Capitol to bury a time capsule in the Capitol Visitor Center (on or before July 4, 2026) as part of this year’s 250th anniversary celebration of the nation’s founding. The purpose of the capsule is to represent legislative milestones to date via a joint letter to the future Congress by the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the House. The time capsule is meant to remain there until July 4, 2276, the nation’s 500th anniversary. The legislation was introduced by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) on Jan. 27. It passed the Senate on Jan. 27, the House on Feb. 9, and was signed into law by the president on Feb. 18.
Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025 (S 3424) – This Act was introduced by Rep. Christopher Coons (D-DE) on Dec. 10, 2025, and passed in the Senate on the same day. It cleared the House on Jan. 12 and was signed into law on Feb. 6. The bill makes alterations to the administration of bankruptcy cases by increasing fees paid to trustees in Chapter 7 (liquidation) cases, and extends by five years the fees paid to trustees in Chapter 11 (reorganization) cases. It also extends the term of bankruptcy judgeships in various districts, as well as other provisions.
Ending Improper Payments to Deceased People Act (S 269) – This legislation requires the Social Security Administration (SSA) to share its death records with the Treasury Department in order to prevent improper payments to deceased individuals. In the past, this bill had to be extended every three years, but the new bill makes the requirement permanent. The bill was introduced by Sen. John Kennedy (R-TN) on Jan. 28, 2025. It passed unanimously in the Senate on Sept. 19, 2025, cleared the House on Jan. 13, and was enacted on Feb. 10.
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (S 1383) – This controversial voting bill passed in the House on Feb. 11. The Republicans in the Senate have secured 50 votes for passage, but the bill requires 60. The provisions in the current bill include requiring:
Each state is to submit full voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for verification of citizenship via its SAVE system, which has historically had a high error rate of flagging citizens as non-citizens.
Voter roll purges every 30 days and end the 90-day quiet period that allows voters mistakenly purged time to re-register before Election Day.
New or changing voter registrants to show proof of U.S. citizenship (birth certificate or passport; five states already meet this requirement for a Real ID driver’s license).
Voters to show photo ID at polls in order to vote (38 states already require this)
A ban on automatically mailing ballots to all voters (currently used by eight states and DC); voters would have to send individual requests to receive a mail ballot.
Democrats in the Senate have vowed to block passage via filibuster.
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.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a competitive advantage; it has become a necessary infrastructure. Businesses now heavily rely on AI-powered systems, from automated customer service to predictive analytics and decision-making tools. These platforms are cloud-based, and their reliance comes with growing concern of AI lock-in. This dependence on major cloud providers and the convenience of Big Tech ecosystems can turn into long-term dependency. In response, cloud sovereignty is gaining momentum.
What Is Cloud Sovereignty?
Cloud sovereignty refers to the ability of an organization to maintain full control over its data, infrastructure, and digital assets. This includes where data is stored, how it is processed, and which legal jurisdiction governs it.
Unlike traditional cloud hosting, where companies rely on a single global provider, cloud sovereignty emphasizes:
Data ownership and portability
Compliance with local laws and regulations
Reduced dependence on foreign-controlled infrastructure
Strategic control over AI models and workflows
The Rise of Big Tech and the AI Lock-in Problem
Over the past decade, companies like AWS, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure have built highly integrated AI ecosystems, especially since the surge of generative AI. These platforms offer powerful tools, including proprietary machine learning services, exclusive Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), pre-trained AI models, and seamless infrastructure scaling.
However, when businesses build their AI systems entirely on one provider’s proprietary tools, switching becomes difficult. Platform dependency can also create serious risks when a vendor fails. A good example is the collapse of Builder.ai, an AI app builder backed by giants like Microsoft and the Qatar Investment Authority. Its collapse was an indicator that companies do not have complete control over the software and data on which their operations depend. This is what is known as AI Lock-in, where:
AI models rely on proprietary APIs
Data pipelines are optimized for a specific cloud architecture
Workflows depend on unique vendor tools
Migration costs become prohibitively high
As a result, businesses suffer:
Escalating operational costs
Limited negotiating power
Reduced flexibility
Strategic vulnerability
In 2026, with AI deeply embedded into operations, being locked-in can threaten long-term agility and innovation.
Regulatory Pressure is Accelerating the Shift
Governments worldwide are tightening digital sovereignty and data protection rules. From stricter data residency laws to AI governance frameworks, compliance is no longer optional. Industries such as finance, healthcare, and telecommunications face heightened scrutiny. They must prove where data is stored, who can access it, and how AI models are trained and governed. Additionally, businesses can’t afford regulatory risks. Regulations such as the CLOUD Act demand data access transparency, while different states are pushing for data localization policies.
Relying entirely on a foreign-controlled AI ecosystem can raise compliance risks. In some regions, businesses are now required to use local or sovereign cloud providers for sensitive workloads. Gartner predicts 35 percent of countries will adopt region-specific AI platforms by 2027 as countries increase investment in domestic AI stacks to meet sovereignty goals.
Regulation, once seen as a burden, is now a strategic driver pushing companies toward sovereign-first strategies.
How Businesses Are Avoiding AI Lock-in Trap
Businesses are not abandoning cloud AI. Instead, they are becoming more strategic about how they implement it.
Embracing open-source and interoperable AI Many businesses are adopting open-source AI frameworks and models to reduce dependency on proprietary systems. By building on interoperable standards, they maintain flexibility to deploy workloads across different environments. This approach allows businesses to experiment freely without being tied to a single vendor’s ecosystem.
Adopting multi-cloud and hybrid strategies Rather than relying on one provider, a business can distribute workloads across multiple clouds. This reduces operational risk, strengthens negotiation leverage, enhances flexibility and improves resilience. Hybrid models, where on-premise infrastructure is combined with cloud services, are also growing in popularity. They ensure sensitive data remains locally controlled while still leveraging AI scalability.
Partnering with sovereign or regional cloud providers Regional cloud providers are gaining traction as they offer local data hosting, compliance with national regulations, and greater transparency.
Strengthening contract and governance frameworks Procurement and legal teams are now playing a more active role in cloud decisions. They negotiate stronger data portability clauses, clear exit strategies, transparent pricing structures, and model ownership rights.
Final Thoughts
In 2026, the real risk is not using AI, but losing control over it.
Cloud sovereignty represents a strategic shift while not rejecting Big Tech. It must be viewed as the ability to act strategically, as no business can dominate every layer of the AI stack due to constraints like the high cost of training advanced AI models.
Businesses that prioritize sovereignty today are building resilient, flexible, and future-ready AI ecosystems. Those who ignore it may find themselves powerful – but trapped.
Cloud Sovereignty vs. Big Tech: How Businesses Are Avoiding the ‘AI Lock-in’ Trap in 2026
March 1, 2026 · Blog, News, What's New in Technology
⏱ 4 min read
Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a competitive advantage; it has become a necessary infrastructure. Businesses now heavily rely on AI-powered systems, from automated customer service to predictive analytics and decision-making tools. These platforms are cloud-based, and their reliance comes with growing concern of AI lock-in. This dependence on major cloud providers and the convenience of Big Tech ecosystems can turn into long-term dependency. In response, cloud sovereignty is gaining momentum.
What Is Cloud Sovereignty?
Cloud sovereignty refers to the ability of an organization to maintain full control over its data, infrastructure, and digital assets. This includes where data is stored, how it is processed, and which legal jurisdiction governs it.
Unlike traditional cloud hosting, where companies rely on a single global provider, cloud sovereignty emphasizes:
Data ownership and portability
Compliance with local laws and regulations
Reduced dependence on foreign-controlled infrastructure
Strategic control over AI models and workflows
The Rise of Big Tech and the AI Lock-in Problem
Over the past decade, companies like AWS, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure have built highly integrated AI ecosystems, especially since the surge of generative AI. These platforms offer powerful tools, including proprietary machine learning services, exclusive Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), pre-trained AI models, and seamless infrastructure scaling.
However, when businesses build their AI systems entirely on one provider’s proprietary tools, switching becomes difficult. Platform dependency can also create serious risks when a vendor fails. A good example is the collapse of Builder.ai, an AI app builder backed by giants like Microsoft and the Qatar Investment Authority. Its collapse was an indicator that companies do not have complete control over the software and data on which their operations depend. This is what is known as AI Lock-in, where:
AI models rely on proprietary APIs
Data pipelines are optimized for a specific cloud architecture
Workflows depend on unique vendor tools
Migration costs become prohibitively high
As a result, businesses suffer:
Escalating operational costs
Limited negotiating power
Reduced flexibility
Strategic vulnerability
In 2026, with AI deeply embedded into operations, being locked-in can threaten long-term agility and innovation.
Regulatory Pressure is Accelerating the Shift
Governments worldwide are tightening digital sovereignty and data protection rules. From stricter data residency laws to AI governance frameworks, compliance is no longer optional. Industries such as finance, healthcare, and telecommunications face heightened scrutiny. They must prove where data is stored, who can access it, and how AI models are trained and governed. Additionally, businesses can’t afford regulatory risks. Regulations such as the CLOUD Act demand data access transparency, while different states are pushing for data localization policies.
Relying entirely on a foreign-controlled AI ecosystem can raise compliance risks. In some regions, businesses are now required to use local or sovereign cloud providers for sensitive workloads. Gartner predicts 35 percent of countries will adopt region-specific AI platforms by 2027 as countries increase investment in domestic AI stacks to meet sovereignty goals.
Regulation, once seen as a burden, is now a strategic driver pushing companies toward sovereign-first strategies.
How Businesses Are Avoiding AI Lock-in Trap
Businesses are not abandoning cloud AI. Instead, they are becoming more strategic about how they implement it.
Embracing open-source and interoperable AI Many businesses are adopting open-source AI frameworks and models to reduce dependency on proprietary systems. By building on interoperable standards, they maintain flexibility to deploy workloads across different environments. This approach allows businesses to experiment freely without being tied to a single vendor’s ecosystem.
Adopting multi-cloud and hybrid strategies Rather than relying on one provider, a business can distribute workloads across multiple clouds. This reduces operational risk, strengthens negotiation leverage, enhances flexibility and improves resilience. Hybrid models, where on-premise infrastructure is combined with cloud services, are also growing in popularity. They ensure sensitive data remains locally controlled while still leveraging AI scalability.
Partnering with sovereign or regional cloud providers Regional cloud providers are gaining traction as they offer local data hosting, compliance with national regulations, and greater transparency.
Strengthening contract and governance frameworks Procurement and legal teams are now playing a more active role in cloud decisions. They negotiate stronger data portability clauses, clear exit strategies, transparent pricing structures, and model ownership rights.
Final Thoughts
In 2026, the real risk is not using AI, but losing control over it.
Cloud sovereignty represents a strategic shift while not rejecting Big Tech. It must be viewed as the ability to act strategically, as no business can dominate every layer of the AI stack due to constraints like the high cost of training advanced AI models.
Businesses that prioritize sovereignty today are building resilient, flexible, and future-ready AI ecosystems. Those who ignore it may find themselves powerful – but trapped.
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.
Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026 (HR 6938) – This Act is one of the remaining budget bills to fund the government through Sept. 30, 2026. It includes funding for several agencies, including the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill was introduced by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) on Jan. 6. It passed in the House on Jan. 8, the Senate on Jan. 15, and was signed into law on Jan. 23.
Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026 (HR 7006) – This Act was introduced by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) on Jan. 12. Yet another fiscal year 2026 budget bill, it authorizes investments to support economic growth and entrepreneurship, safeguard American security and authorize funding for the Executive and Judicial branches. The bill passed in the House on Jan. 14 and is awaiting passage in the Senate.
Trafficking Survivors Relief Act (HR 4323) – The purpose of this bipartisan bill is to help stop a vicious cycle that makes human trafficking victims vulnerable to further exploitation. The Act enables survivors to file motions to vacate non-violent convictions and purge arrest records for certain criminal offenses committed as a direct result of being trafficked. The current iteration of the bill was introduced by Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC) on July 19, 2025. It cleared the House on Dec. 1, the Senate on Dec. 18, and was signed into law on Jan. 23.
Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act (HR 131) – Introduced by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) on January 3, 2025, this bill is related to a Colorado water infrastructure pipeline currently under construction, designed to port clean water from the Pueblo Reservoir to 50,000 Coloradans in the local area. The bill would have extended the repayment period for local municipalities and removed interest payments. The bill passed in the House on July 21 and in the Senate on Dec. 16; it was vetoed by the President on Dec. 31, 2025.
Miccosukee Reserved Area Amendments Act (HR 504) – This bill would have authorized the expansion of the Miccosukee Reserved Area to include a portion of Everglades National Park in Florida. In recent years, the area, known as Osceola Camp, has been prone to flooding, and this bill would have authorized safeguard measures to protect structures within the camp. The bill was introduced on Jan. 16, 2025, by Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL). It passed in the House on July 14 and in the Senate on Dec. 11, 2025. The bill was vetoed by the President on Dec. 30 and failed an override vote in the House on Jan. 8.
Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 (S 222) – This Act amends the existing National School Lunch Act to allow schools participating in the federal school lunch program to serve whole milk. It was introduced by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) on Jan. 23, 2025, passed the Senate on Nov. 20, the House on Dec. 15 and was signed into law by the President on Jan. 14.
Completing FY2026 Budget Appropriations, Protecting Trafficked Victims, and Vetoing Special Interest Projects
February 1, 2026 · Blog, Congress at Work, News
⏱ 3 min read
Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026 (HR 6938) – This Act is one of the remaining budget bills to fund the government through Sept. 30, 2026. It includes funding for several agencies, including the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill was introduced by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) on Jan. 6. It passed in the House on Jan. 8, the Senate on Jan. 15, and was signed into law on Jan. 23.
Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026 (HR 7006) – This Act was introduced by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) on Jan. 12. Yet another fiscal year 2026 budget bill, it authorizes investments to support economic growth and entrepreneurship, safeguard American security and authorize funding for the Executive and Judicial branches. The bill passed in the House on Jan. 14 and is awaiting passage in the Senate.
Trafficking Survivors Relief Act (HR 4323) – The purpose of this bipartisan bill is to help stop a vicious cycle that makes human trafficking victims vulnerable to further exploitation. The Act enables survivors to file motions to vacate non-violent convictions and purge arrest records for certain criminal offenses committed as a direct result of being trafficked. The current iteration of the bill was introduced by Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC) on July 19, 2025. It cleared the House on Dec. 1, the Senate on Dec. 18, and was signed into law on Jan. 23.
Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act (HR 131) – Introduced by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) on January 3, 2025, this bill is related to a Colorado water infrastructure pipeline currently under construction, designed to port clean water from the Pueblo Reservoir to 50,000 Coloradans in the local area. The bill would have extended the repayment period for local municipalities and removed interest payments. The bill passed in the House on July 21 and in the Senate on Dec. 16; it was vetoed by the President on Dec. 31, 2025.
Miccosukee Reserved Area Amendments Act (HR 504) – This bill would have authorized the expansion of the Miccosukee Reserved Area to include a portion of Everglades National Park in Florida. In recent years, the area, known as Osceola Camp, has been prone to flooding, and this bill would have authorized safeguard measures to protect structures within the camp. The bill was introduced on Jan. 16, 2025, by Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL). It passed in the House on July 14 and in the Senate on Dec. 11, 2025. The bill was vetoed by the President on Dec. 30 and failed an override vote in the House on Jan. 8.
Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 (S 222) – This Act amends the existing National School Lunch Act to allow schools participating in the federal school lunch program to serve whole milk. It was introduced by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) on Jan. 23, 2025, passed the Senate on Nov. 20, the House on Dec. 15 and was signed into law by the President on Jan. 14.
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.
Every modern business is paying rent. Not for office space or equipment, but for the digital infrastructure that runs the company. This might include the cost of CRMs, email platforms, project management tools, automation tools, analytical dashboards, and countless other tools designed to solve a specific business need. Individually, these tools seem affordable; collectively, they form a permanent tax on business growth.
For several years now, software-as-a-service (SaaS) has been sold as a form of freedom. Businesses were promised low upfront cost, instant deployment, and minimal complexity. For a long time, SaaS delivered on this promise. It helped companies move faster, scale quickl,y and compete globally regardless of size.
But this is shifting. Now, business leaders are beginning to question whether renting critical systems is still a worthy strategy.
The SaaS Era
The rise of SaaS was a necessary evolution. It lowered the entry barrier for tools that once required large IT teams and a huge capital investment.
However, this convenience turned into dependency. Businesses not only adapted SaaS tools, but they also built operations around them. Third-party platforms now hold business workflows, customer data, analytics, automations, and even institutional knowledge. This means that a business has dozens of subscriptions they don’t fully control, can’t meaningfully customize, and must keep paying for to keep operating.
What Sovereign Ownership Means
Sovereign ownership doesn’t mean abandoning the cloud or rejecting modern technology; it means owning the core logic of your business systems. The sovereign models emphasize self-management, control and long-term resilience.
When a business practices sovereign ownership, it controls:
Where data resides (e.g., virtual private clouds or sovereign clouds)
Access permissions and encryption keys
Workflows and automations
Internal knowledge systems
AI models and training data
The ability to move, adapt, or rebuild without needing vendor permission
Self-sovereign identity has been a great support for this shift. SSI protocols allow businesses, employees, and customers to control their digital identities and credentials without relying on centralized identity providers. This means that identity is not locked inside the SaaS platform, as it is portable, verifiable, and owned by the entity itself.
The Real Cost of SaaS Goes Beyond the Invoice
SaaS costs more than renting the service. Aside from monthly or annual subscriptions that compound into a huge expense over time, vendor lock-in makes switching platforms painful and risky. The pricing models also keep changing. Features may be removed or placed under higher payment tiers. Other issues include broken integrations and limited or messy data exports.
More critically, companies adapt their workflows to match the SaaS tools, rather than the tool serving the business. Therefore, innovation is constrained by what the platform allows and not what the business needs.
The biggest risk is when a SaaS provider is acquired, suffers downtime, or shuts down entirely. When this happens, your business absorbs the impact without control or leverage.
Why 2026 Is the Turning Point
Why now? Because the alternatives have finally matured. Decentralized physical infrastructure (DePIN), the maturity of enterprise-grade, open-source software, and modular cloud architecture have made system ownership accessible without deep technical teams. AI has transformed how businesses build, automate, and maintain internal tools. Modular infrastructure allows companies to own their core while selectively renting specialized services.
At the same time, external pressure is increasing as data privacy regulations tighten. Regulatory frameworks like the U.S. Cloud Act, the GDRP and the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) demand operational independence that SaaS cannot fully deliver. Gartner predicts that by 2030, 75 percent of enterprises outside of the United States will implement data sovereignty strategies due to regulatory scrutiny and geopolitical tensions.
Major players are already responding. IBM is one example of the shift, as they already announced IBM Sovereign Core, software that helps businesses take back control of their data and systems.
Customers are also more aware. They want to know how their data is stored, processed, and protected. AI models trained on proprietary information raise new questions of ownership and risk. In an uncertain global economy, businesses want cost predictability and not endless variable subscriptions.
The mindset is shifting from speed at any cost to resilience by design.
From Renters to Owners
SaaS helped businesses grow. But growth built on dependency has limits.
2026 represents a strategic window where ownership is finally accessible, affordable, and necessary. The shift toward sovereign systems is not about rebellion against technology that has previously helped businesses. It’s about leverage, resilience, and long-term value.
The future belongs to businesses that stop renting their foundations and start owning their future.
Reclaiming the Rent: Why 2026 is the Year Businesses Switch from SaaS to Sovereign Ownership
February 1, 2026 · Blog, News, What's New in Technology
⏱ 4 min read
Every modern business is paying rent. Not for office space or equipment, but for the digital infrastructure that runs the company. This might include the cost of CRMs, email platforms, project management tools, automation tools, analytical dashboards, and countless other tools designed to solve a specific business need. Individually, these tools seem affordable; collectively, they form a permanent tax on business growth.
For several years now, software-as-a-service (SaaS) has been sold as a form of freedom. Businesses were promised low upfront cost, instant deployment, and minimal complexity. For a long time, SaaS delivered on this promise. It helped companies move faster, scale quickl,y and compete globally regardless of size.
But this is shifting. Now, business leaders are beginning to question whether renting critical systems is still a worthy strategy.
The SaaS Era
The rise of SaaS was a necessary evolution. It lowered the entry barrier for tools that once required large IT teams and a huge capital investment.
However, this convenience turned into dependency. Businesses not only adapted SaaS tools, but they also built operations around them. Third-party platforms now hold business workflows, customer data, analytics, automations, and even institutional knowledge. This means that a business has dozens of subscriptions they don’t fully control, can’t meaningfully customize, and must keep paying for to keep operating.
What Sovereign Ownership Means
Sovereign ownership doesn’t mean abandoning the cloud or rejecting modern technology; it means owning the core logic of your business systems. The sovereign models emphasize self-management, control and long-term resilience.
When a business practices sovereign ownership, it controls:
Where data resides (e.g., virtual private clouds or sovereign clouds)
Access permissions and encryption keys
Workflows and automations
Internal knowledge systems
AI models and training data
The ability to move, adapt, or rebuild without needing vendor permission
Self-sovereign identity has been a great support for this shift. SSI protocols allow businesses, employees, and customers to control their digital identities and credentials without relying on centralized identity providers. This means that identity is not locked inside the SaaS platform, as it is portable, verifiable, and owned by the entity itself.
The Real Cost of SaaS Goes Beyond the Invoice
SaaS costs more than renting the service. Aside from monthly or annual subscriptions that compound into a huge expense over time, vendor lock-in makes switching platforms painful and risky. The pricing models also keep changing. Features may be removed or placed under higher payment tiers. Other issues include broken integrations and limited or messy data exports.
More critically, companies adapt their workflows to match the SaaS tools, rather than the tool serving the business. Therefore, innovation is constrained by what the platform allows and not what the business needs.
The biggest risk is when a SaaS provider is acquired, suffers downtime, or shuts down entirely. When this happens, your business absorbs the impact without control or leverage.
Why 2026 Is the Turning Point
Why now? Because the alternatives have finally matured. Decentralized physical infrastructure (DePIN), the maturity of enterprise-grade, open-source software, and modular cloud architecture have made system ownership accessible without deep technical teams. AI has transformed how businesses build, automate, and maintain internal tools. Modular infrastructure allows companies to own their core while selectively renting specialized services.
At the same time, external pressure is increasing as data privacy regulations tighten. Regulatory frameworks like the U.S. Cloud Act, the GDRP and the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) demand operational independence that SaaS cannot fully deliver. Gartner predicts that by 2030, 75 percent of enterprises outside of the United States will implement data sovereignty strategies due to regulatory scrutiny and geopolitical tensions.
Major players are already responding. IBM is one example of the shift, as they already announced IBM Sovereign Core, software that helps businesses take back control of their data and systems.
Customers are also more aware. They want to know how their data is stored, processed, and protected. AI models trained on proprietary information raise new questions of ownership and risk. In an uncertain global economy, businesses want cost predictability and not endless variable subscriptions.
The mindset is shifting from speed at any cost to resilience by design.
From Renters to Owners
SaaS helped businesses grow. But growth built on dependency has limits.
2026 represents a strategic window where ownership is finally accessible, affordable, and necessary. The shift toward sovereign systems is not about rebellion against technology that has previously helped businesses. It’s about leverage, resilience, and long-term value.
The future belongs to businesses that stop renting their foundations and start owning their future.
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.
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.