Blog

Key takeaways:

• • • Automation is a top priority, but progress is slow — While automation ranks highly among corporate tax leaders’ priorities, leaders from a majority of tax departments still view their automation efforts as reactive or chaotic rather than optimized or predictive.

    • Resource constraints limit automation efforts — More than half of respondents say their tax departments feel under-resourced, and those departments with limited resources are much more likely to struggle with implementing effective automation strategies.

    • Departments need to invest to see automation returns — Most tax departments attempt to tackle automation internally, often relying on hybrid roles rather than dedicated technology professionals, which can further strain already limited resources and hinder progress.

---

The corporate tax world wishes to automate. This likely isn’t a surprise, given the increasingly complex and ever-changing nature of tax laws and regulations, particularly over the past year. In fact, according to the recently published 2025 State of the Corporate Tax Department report from the Thomson Reuters Institute and Tax Executives Institute, 10% of corporate tax leaders named process automation as their single top priority for the next 18 months, and about one-quarter of them have it as a Top 3 priority. That trails only tax compliance, planning & strategy, and new tax legislation among trends that are top of mind among corporate tax leaders today.

This heightened level of importance for automation may be a reflection of where tax departments view their efforts currently. The same report reveals that more than two-thirds of survey respondents view the levels of automation within their tax departments as reactive or chaotic, while very few are taking an optimized or predictive posture. Clearly, there is work to be done in order to extract the most from workflow tools, or even next-generation technologies such as agentic AI for tax work.

This begs the question, however: Even if corporate tax leaders are trying to automate, how are they going to go about actually doing so? As with many initiatives in the business world, it may be easier said than done.

Corporate tax departments have long been asked to do more with less, and many are feeling the effects of limited resources for daily tax work, let alone new technology investment and implementation. At the same time, however, research reveals that many of these same departments are looking to tackle automation initiatives on their own, eschewing outside aid from service providers or other third parties.

Clearly, something has to give in order to automate the department. Either corporate tax departments need to find resources to dedicate to true automation, or they need to figure out how to better work with outside providers to make automation occur. Because as it stands now, many departments risk being stuck in a state of stasis, never being able to truly bring their automation beyond a reactive posture.

Automation issues

Process automation can provide a major boon to corporate tax departments, if it is implemented correctly. Actions such as integrating and centralizing data through an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, breaking down silos to facilitate cross-departmental coordination and communication, and implementing cutting-edge technologies such as AI can help tax professionals gain greater speed, accuracy, and efficiency.

However, it’s clear that many tax professionals do not believe their organizations are automating in a way that allows for more proactive technology usage. In fact, 68% say they view their organization’s technology and automation usage as chaotic or reactive — only slightly better than in last year’s report.

This skeptical view towards their tax department’s technology posture also is not unique to any particular size or geographic location of their company. More than 60% of respondents from companies with less than $50 million in annual revenue took a negative view towards the state of automation; yet the same holds true for respondents from companies with more than $5 billion in annual revenue. And while global respondents were slightly more bullish on automation than their counterparts in the United States, the need for more automation is clearly a global goal.

Some interesting differences occur, however, when cross-tabulating opinions of automation with whether a respondent feels their department is adequately resourced. In total, 58% of respondents say they feel their department is under-resourced (an increase of 7 percentage points from last year), while just 38% say they feel their department is resourced about right, with the remainder unsure.

To be sure, there is some technology consternation even among those that say they feel their organization is adequately resourced. More than half (55%) of that group say they feel  their automation posture was either reactive or chaotic, displaying that adequate resources are not a panacea to technology woes.

A lack of resources, however, can certainly seem to exacerbate the problem. Among respondents who say they feel their department is under-resourced, 77% called their automation posture chaotic or reactive, 22 percentage points higher than did respondents at adequately resourced departments. Just 4% of this under-resourced group felt their automation was either optimized or predictive, compared to 10% of the adequately resourced group.

Automation plans into action

One might expect that corporate tax departments would be looking for outside help — either from the rest of the business or from third parties — particularly given the effect of resource constraints on technology efforts. After all, automation is just one priority among a number of complex areas within the tax department, and it’s also not an area that many tax professionals may be naturally equipped to tackle.

However, when asked about their primary strategies for tackling automation internally, many tax departments are still mainly looking in-house. Some are working with their company’s IT or senior leadership, while fewer are working with outside vendors or consultants. Among companies of all sizes, however, the primary way most are tackling automation is through a team within the tax department itself.

Tax departments within larger companies do tend to have more resources, both monetary and in personnel, and thus have more capability to tackle tax automation in-house. Even at smaller companies, however, most are attempting to stretch resources internally rather than setting aside budget for external help.

Often, this means training existing staff on technology, given that few tax departments have technologists directly on staff. In a separate report from the Thomson Reuters Institute and the Tax Executives Institute released earlier this year, the 2025 Corporate Tax Technology Report, our research found that just 15% of survey respondents say their tax departments have a technology-specific professional within the department, while 28% say they have technology personnel shared with another department such as finance. However, the most common way of staffing technology matters is through hybrid roles, the report shows, with more than half (52%) of departments primarily staffing their technology initiatives through hybrid personnel that hold both tax and technology job functions.

Again, this begs the question: How big of a priority is automation truly for today’s tax departments? Department leadership claims that it is one of their top priorities moving forward, but tax professionals still see a reactive or chaotic posture towards automation in their own work. Further, attempts to change this dynamic are largely internal, often being left to personnel with dual tax/technology roles who may be already feeling the pressure of being under-resourced and having to do more with less.

Ultimately, automation should be a top-level strategy decision for tax departments, not something simply alluded to with lip service. Is automating the department’s work processes actually a priority? Would automation provide positive returns, making it worth the investment? What mix of personnel would actually lead to success, rather than to what is expedient?

If automation is truly a priority, corporate tax leaders need to dedicate actually impactful resources to technology projects, above and beyond stretching internal tax professionals further. Otherwise, today’s tax departments risk never moving beyond a reactive technology posture.

---

You can download a full copy of the 2025 State of the Corporate Tax Department report, published by the Thomson Reuters Institute and Tax Executives Institute, here

Applications

21/10/2025
6 views
0 likes

Better in-flight streaming and video-calling might just become more accessible thanks to a project supported by the European Space Agency (ESA). Building upon the success of an experiment for a new type of antenna terminal together with ESA, Viasat – a global leader in satellite communications – now plans to commercialise its new in-flight connectivity solution called Viasat Amara.

Viasat Amara has a dual-beam phased array antenna that provides both better access to video calling (a latency-sensitive use), as well as video streaming such as watching a football match (a bandwidth-sensitive use). This is possible because the antenna can connect to satellites both in low Earth orbit and in geostationary orbit, depending on what is needed. Links using satellites in low Earth orbit have lower latency with minimal communication delays, whereas those with satellites in geostationary orbit have a high bandwidth and so can transmit much more data.

Testing the antenna

The antenna terminal was developed, designed and tested within an ESA partnership, under  ESA’s programme of Advanced Research in Telecommunications Systems (ARTES). The experiment, conducted in 2021, consisted of a demonstration flight from Rotterdam in the Netherlands to Payerne in Switzerland. The antenna provided a reliable satellite connection en route, enabling passengers to stream content on Youtube and Netflix, and video call with colleagues on the ground.

The antenna’s design

The antenna uses an innovative design known as an electronically steered phased array. Rather than relying on a single large antenna that physically moves to track satellites, it uses many small components. These individual elements coordinate the timing of their signals to have a unified connection, similar to how a stadium wave forms as each person stands up consequently. This mirrors movement and provides not only a faster way to connect, but also the possibility of connecting to two satellites simultaneously.

Viasat’s in-flight solution’s commercial service is expected to begin in 2028. Thanks to its modular technology, the product can be easily incorporated into existing antennas, making it cheaper and easier to incorporate in passenger airlines.

“Phased array antennas are an evolutionary and much needed step towards more energy and space efficient in-flight connectivity solutions, and we are proud to have contributed to Project Aidan – a key milestone that led Viasat to developing Amara. We’re looking forward to next opportunities for cooperation with Viasat, and many other industry partners – for the benefit of all ESA Member States,” said Massimiliano Simeoni, Aidan’s Project Implementation Manager at ESA Connectivity and Secure Communications.

“The Viasat Aera terminal is a key part of Viasat Amara, our next generation in-flight connectivity solution going far beyond fast and free high-speed Wi-Fi,” said Viasat on its Viasat Amara announcement. “Our pioneering mission remains to help our airline customers maximize connectivity’s enormous potential for brand, loyalty, and growth. It’s been great to work with ESA as one of our key partners to help bring it to fruition.”

This antenna development marks the beginning of exciting opportunities for the future of onboard connectivity.

Like

Thank you for liking

You have already liked this page, you can only like it once!

LAWRENCE — According to new research, social media may be a surprisingly reliable source for stock tips … if you know where to look.

“We find that when investors discuss analyst revisions on Twitter, it helps the market better understand and more quickly impound the information in the analyst report,” said Eric Weisbrod, associate professor of accounting at the University of Kansas.

His article titled “Social Media Discussion of Sell-Side Analyst Research: Evidence from Twitter” examines sell-side analysts’ stock recommendation revisions on Twitter, observing increased levels of price discovery during intraday windows with more revision-related tweets. This is especially notable for tweets with more user engagement and those posted by more influential authors.

Weisbrod’s work is forthcoming in an issue of Review of Accounting Studies. 

“Whether it’s on Twitter or WallStreetBets on Reddit or whichever platform, people will post about the profits they’ve been making … or sometimes, humorously, about their losses,” Weisbrod said.

“But for the individuals who are making money, other people see that on their social media feed, and since they would like to experience similar profits, they try to follow these individuals’ advice. It’s similar to any type of celebrity or influencer.”

Co-written by KU doctoral candidate Matt Peterson, Andrew Call of the University of Southern California and Mehmet Kara of the University of Georgia, the research finds that platforms such as Twitter have emerged in this space due to the barriers retail investors face in accessing analysts’ stock recommendation revisions in a timely fashion.

“The common metaphor for Twitter is it’s the digital town square. We find that’s true with respect to this piece of information. When an analyst changes their recommendation, the revision used to be very proprietary to only the clients of the brokerage where the analysts work. But the more times information is discussed in the town square, the more that all investors can incorporate the news,” said Weisbrod, who notes the data for the article was culled prior to July 2023, when Elon Musk took over Twitter and changed its name to X.

One key question is why people make any financial decisions based on social media discussions.

“We’re putting one more data point in this debate that there’s good and bad information on social media, and I think that’s the challenge we all face these days of trying to identify what’s credible and what’s not,” Weisbrod said.

His team found several tests to determine if the information is reliably helpful for investors.

“For example, if there’s a link to an underlying source document that can show this was an analyst report — not just a random bot recommending a stock — that makes it more credible. Or if it’s from a verified account. And since our data is from the original Twitter period, to be verified you actually had to submit documentation. It wasn’t just ‘pay for verification’ like it is now. So if you were a verified public figure and tweeted about an analyst recommendation, then your tweets were more credible,” he said.

The impetus for this story stemmed from a presentation Weisbrod and Peterson attended concerning how viral tweets about earnings were bad for investors.

“We both had been thinking, ‘I wonder if people discuss analyst reports on Twitter? And is that good or bad?’ So the two of us started talking, and it evolved from there,” Weisbrod said.

Since analyst research is typically proprietary, the researchers were unsure how much Twitter discussion they would find. Yet they were able to analyze 50,286 recommendation revisions announced from 2013 to 2020. They observed at least one revision-related tweet during the two trading-day announcement window for 90.1% of all these revisions.

“Brokerages don’t really want their analysts’ research getting out because they want it to be more valuable to their own clients,” he said. “But we didn’t know that the leaks or discussion of these things would be quite so prevalent.”

Weisbrod previously served as an academic fellow in the Office of the Chief Accountant at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. The Dallas native came to KU in 2020, where his research focuses on financial data providers and financial analysts.

“There’s a lot of information of questionable credibility on social media. Since we’re in the business school, we mostly think about investment-related social media. Even within that, some people are just pumping and dumping stocks, and it’s hard to know who to trust,” Weisbrod said.

“What we found is one way to capitalize on seeing people discussing a stock on social media. You can trust this more if it references a certified financial analyst, and then maybe this person has actually done their homework instead of just trying to scam you into buying a stock.”