Tulane’s School of Professional Advancement will provide a library of online courses for the first class of accounting graduates completing their 150-credit-hour requirement while earning a paycheck via the AICPA and NASBA’s Experience, Learn & Earn program.
The AICPA said the National Pipeline Advisory Group will “play a critical role in guiding” the conversation and making calls to action to address the slowdown in young people choosing accounting as a career.
Too many businesses are unaware of the beneficial ownership information reporting requirements, which will be a burden for small businesses, the AICPA told Congress.
The AICPA Auditing Standards Board’s Technology Working Group has developed a new practice aid that will emphasize how technology should be seen as a key enabler, elevating audit effectiveness and efficiency for the future. It uses risk assessment procedures under SAS No. 145 as the example.
The national taxpayer advocate recommended changes that range from one simple one the IRS can handle on its own to congressional action.
Leaders with their finger on the pulse of sustainability reporting see an opportunity for accountants to create value. They also see that challenges such as interoperability and capacity building will need to be addressed.
The Experience, Learn & Earn program aims to turn accounting students into employees faster and in a more economical way, to the benefit of companies seeking talent.
From its launch in the early days of the pandemic through Tuesday’s milestone episode, Town Hall has kept more than 800,000 viewers informed about the most important issues affecting the profession.
The IRS issues at least its seventh warning about the employee retention credit since October 2022.
At its spring meeting, the AICPA Council voiced support for the Pipeline Acceleration Plan and decided to move forward with development of a national strategy focused on boosting the accounting profession’s talent outlook.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing. A lot has changed since that incredible event, including the size and scope of the federal government. From 1970 to 2017, the number of words in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) nearly tripled from 35 million to over 103 million. This increase in regulation reduced economic growth and lowered Americans’ incomes, and now
Of course, not all regulation is bad. Regulations that focus on basic worker or consumer safety often have benefits that outweigh their costs. But many regulations on the books today go way beyond basic safety, which isn’t surprising considering the rapid growth of the CFR just mentioned. Such regulations protect established businesses by limiting entry or increase firms’ costs without providing an offsetting safety benefit, harming workers, customers, and potential entrepreneurs in the process.
And this harm is not just theoretical. The studies in a recent issue of the academic journal Public Choice focus on how regulation impacts lower-income people and many of them find harmful effects.
One study by Dustin Chambers, Courtney A. Collins, and Alan Krause finds that regulation leads to higher consumer prices—a 10% increase in total regulation leads to about a 1% increase in prices. They also find that low-income households spend more of their money on the goods and services most prone to regulation-induced price increases. This means too much regulation worsens the financial problems of people who are already struggling.
Another study by G.P. Manish and Colin O’Reilly finds that more intense banking supervision and regulation is associated with greater income inequality. They attribute this finding to regulatory capture, in which banking-industry insiders capture the regulatory process and use it to promote the interests of established banks at the expense of competitors. The result is fewer banking options for low-income households which makes it harder for them to accumulate wealth.
A third study by Dustin Chambers, Patrick McLaughlin, and Laura Stanley finds that more federal regulation is associated with more poverty at the state level. Using a measure of the federal regulatory burden imposed on each state, they find that at 10% increase in a state’s regulatory burden is associated with a 2.5% increase in the state’s poverty rate.
In addition to these studies, others show that too much regulation reduces employment growth and business investment, both of which contribute to lower wages for workers.
Luckily, people are starting to pay closer attention to the costs of too much regulation. Kentucky has set up a red-tape-reduction initiative that has already repealed or amended 27% of the state’s administrative regulations. Rhode Island is engaged in an ambitious program to reduce its regulatory burden and the state’s Code of Regulations recently won an innovation award. Virginia also has a bipartisan plan in place to reduce unnecessary regulation and Idaho is in the process of analyzing its entire regulatory code after lawmakers failed to reauthorize it.
Not to be outdone, the Trump administration has tried to take similar steps at the federal level. So far it has been unable to repeal as many regulations as Trump initially hoped, but it has significantly slowed the growth of new regulations, as shown in the figure below from the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University.
The administration has also pressured states to reform their occupational licensing and reduce land-use regulations that drive up the cost of housing. The effectiveness of these actions remains to be seen but since both types of regulation disproportionately hurt low-income people it’s encouraging to see that the administration is skeptical of them.
Regulation has costs and benefits, but for too long the costs were largely ignored. As a result, there’s too much regulation at all levels of government and exact research highlights how all this regulation is particularly harmful to the country’s poor. Regulatory reform efforts in Kentucky, Rhode Island, Virginia, and other states—along with the federal reforms—are a good step towards simplifying the maze of regulation entrepreneurs must navigate and more states should follow their lead.
Proposed regulations issued Friday (REG-134420-12) would update and revise the consolidated return regulations to reflect legislative action taken during the past 50-plus years, remove consolidated return regulations that have no practical applicability to taxpayers, eliminate obsolete or otherwise incorrect terms and cross-references, remove transition rules for transactions occurring in or before 2009, and eliminate antiquated or regressive terminology.
The proposed regulations would also withdraw or partially withdraw numerous proposed regulations that are being incorporated in the new proposed regulations or have been incorporated in revised form in final regulations or that have been obsoleted by other final regulations. Also being eliminated are various proposed regulations that cross-referenced temporary regulations that were removed, have expired, or otherwise have become obsolete. Additionally, the proposed regulations would withdraw temporary regulations that no longer have practical applicability to taxpayers or that would be replaced when the proposed regulations are finalized.
Among the changes the proposed regulations would make to reflect statutory amendments, the proposed regulations would modify the definition of the word "tax" in Sec. 1.1502(b)(5) to add a reference in Sec. 55(a), to reflect the amendment of Sec. 55 to impose the new corporate alternative minimum tax by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-169. They also would add a reference to the Sec. 59A base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) that was added in the law known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, P.L. 115-97.
Regarding replacing antiquated language, the proposed regulations would replace all gender-specific pronouns and other identifiers in the consolidated returns regulations with gender-neural pronouns and identifiers. They would also identify American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as "territories" rather than "possessions" of the United States.
Updating the consolidated return regulations to reflect statutory changes and removing obsolete rules from them was included in the most exact priority guidance plan published by IRS and also in previous versions.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by Nov. 6.
— To comment on this article or to suggest an idea for another article, contact Martha Waggoner at Martha.Waggoner@aicpa-cima.com
Eleanor Lightbody is CEO of Luminance, a leading provider of AI technology for document review and legal process automation.
As artificial intelligence (AI) hits the mainstream consciousness like never before, it’s no surprise that the conversation has swiftly moved on to how we regulate it. But with AI regulation yet to be imposed by any major global regulator, industry leaders are uniquely positioned to be forward-thinking and bold in their approach.
From self-driving vehicles on our roads to medical imaging in hospitals and fraud-detection software used by banks, AI is having a profound impact on our economy and society. Indeed, a exact report by Goldman Sachs indicated that AI is expected to raise global GDP by as much as 7% over a ten-year period.
But if we are to achieve that ambition, we must not allow the economic and societal importance of AI to get lost amid the fears and scaremongering that currently surrounds the technology. Rather, we should be encouraging the creation of regulatory frameworks that promote the development and productization of AI.
So, where do we begin? Effective AI regulation should start with bringing the great minds behind AI to the table—those who possess a sophisticated understanding of AI and its applications. There is currently a fixation on creating regulation that forces decisions made by AI to be "explainable." I believe this approach is unrealistic because AI doesn’t formulate decisions in an "explainable" way.
We as humans like to think of our own decisions as explainable, but it’s actually a lot more complex than that. If I ask you, "Why did you have toast for breakfast," in all likelihood, you didn’t think about why you made that decision, but you will post-justify it. You may give an explanation that often bears no similarity to why you made the decision. Much like the human brain, AI considers the subtleties and complexities of vast sums of data in order to reach a decision.
A rush to impose overly simple regulation is not only going to stop the development of AI but also the benefits it brings. We need a balance. For example, we need to be careful about how people’s private medical records are used—and that’s a good thing. But if we regulate it in a way that prevents us from using AI to spot cancer three months earlier, that would be a tragedy.
The draft EU AI Act is a good first step for regulation. It focuses on curbing certain AI applications, like live facial recognition, "social scoring," and predictive policing, that present unacceptable levels of risk to the public. This approach aims to protect rights and values, recognizing the need for AI creators to be involved in discussions.
The EU's approach, which treats AI as a social issue rather than a purely technological one, seems sensible given we are still trying to understand how wide-ranging the effects of AI will be.
To be sure, legislating technology, let alone such a rapidly developing technology as AI is no easy task. The Countering Online Harms Act has only recently come into force, even though the internet has been an integral part of society for years. Further, there are several big questions that governments will have to tackle when it comes to creating AI regulation.
Take, for example, the simple assertion, "AI shouldn’t undermine democracy." To effectively legislate this, lawmakers will have to answer questions about what, exactly, this means.
What do we define as democracy? What data is the AI being trained on and who is training it? Do they fall to the left or right of the political spectrum? And who sits above these biases and can objectively say what’s right? These questions are all part of the regulatory process and something that industry leaders will have to answer.
Despite the complexity of the challenge, we are at a pivotal moment in the AI revolution. We cannot afford to shut down AI altogether when our quality of life and collective prosperity depend on these systems. Technology that can help discover drugs that could limit the effects of cancer and Alzheimer’s or prevent disaster by visualizing potential areas of flooding is surely no bad thing.
And yet, at the same time, we must protect society against AI being misused. There is a clear need for more robust and ultimately more consistent regulatory guidance informed by AI experts.
So, how can we get AI regulation right? It’s clearly not a question easily answered. However, there are steps we can take. We should not allow the AI debate or, indeed, essential AI knowledge to be monopolized by a single body.
Constructive dialogue between both regulators and AI businesses is essential if we want to strike a balance between consumer protection and AI commercialization. Further, we cannot allow overcaution to prevail over innovation.
We should be confident in adopting a flexible framework that acknowledges the wide-ranging applications of AI, moving away from a simplistic "one-size-fits-all" mindset to more of a case-by-case, or even industry-by-industry, approach. This will be key to allowing the global AI ecosystem to thrive and drive us into the next technological revolution.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
The Association of International Certified Professional Accountants unveiled a new educational report on climate resilience Monday, the fourth in a series of online documents aimed at educating accountants about sustainability.
Accounting for Climate Resilience aims to help finance professionals lead their organizations with initiatives like scenario analysis and adaptation planning so they can build greater resilience. It comes amid alarming signs of climate change, as record-setting temperatures have hit the U.S., Europe and other parts of the world in exact days.
The Association of International Certified Professional Accountants is the umbrella organization for the American Institute of CPAs and the London-based Chartered Institute of Professional Accountants, together known as AICPA & CIMA.
"Finance professionals are at the heart of business and therefore are well-placed to help create resilient business models and implement strategies for organizational sustainability in a changing world," said Martin Farrar, associate technical director at AICPA & CIMA, in a statement. "They have connections within the business and can join the dots with stakeholders outside the business to start conversations about what resilience looks like in relation to the risks posed by the climate emergency."
This and the other educational briefs try to help organizations and their accountants consider sustainability issues, integrate them into long-term decision-making, and incorporate them within internal and external reporting.
The previous reports included Accounting for the Sustainable Development Goals, Accounting for Carbon and Accounting for Nature.
Accountants have increasingly become involved in providing assurance services for sustainability reporting, in line with the trend toward greater environmental, social and governance reporting, as more companies provide shareholders with ESG reports.
The AICPA & CIMA have been encouraging accountants to provide such services. "With their skills and knowledge, finance professionals can provide insights into organizational governance, strategy, risk management, and performance to support sustainable decision-making built on sound business analysis and assurance of both financial and non-financial information, including sustainability-related data," said Jeremy Osborn, global head of ESG at AICPA & CIMA," in a statement. "They are ideally placed to support climate scenario development and build this into organizational adaptation plans."
Last month, the Center for Audit Quality updated its analysis of the number of S&P 500 companies providing ESG assurance, and found the number of S&P 500 companies reporting ESG information grew from 93% to 99%. The number of companies seeking assurance over certain ESG metrics increased by 13% from 2020, from 52% to 65%. Of the companies that assured their ESG information, 18% engaged a public company auditor. The majority of companies that used a public company auditor to assure their ESG information used the same firm that performed their financial statement audit. In 2021, the scope of information being subject to assurance increased, especially when public company audit firms provided the assurance
There has been a backlash against ESG investment funds in some conservative-led states like Florida and Texas, and Republicans in Congress have been holding hearings in exact months in an effort to discourage ESG investment funds and sustainability reporting. Nevertheless, such reporting is likely to remain in demand, especially with the Securities and Exchange Commission expected to finalize the rule it proposed last year for climate-related disclosures sometime this fall. Many other countries have already begun moving forward with the European Union imposing a Corporate Reporting Sustainability Directive, and the International Sustainability Standards Board finalizing its sustainability and climate disclosure standards late last month.
How does a gene, which consists of a string of DNA hidden in a cell's nucleus, know when it should express itself? How does this gene cause the production of a string of amino acids called a protein? How do different types of cells know which types of proteins they must manufacture? The answers to such questions lie in the study of gene expression. Thus, this collection or articles begins by showing how a quiet, well-guarded string of DNA is expressed to make RNA, and how the messenger RNA is translated from nucleic acid coding to protein coding to form a protein. Along the way, the article set also examines the nature of the genetic code, how the elements of code were predicted, and how the real codons were determined.
Next, we turn to the regulation of genes. Genes can't control an organism on their own; rather, they must interact with and respond to the organism's environment. Some genes are constitutive, or always "on," regardless of environmental conditions. Such genes are among the most important elements of a cell's genome, and they control the ability of DNA to replicate, express itself, and repair itself. These genes also control protein synthesis and much of an organism's central metabolism. In contrast, regulated genes are needed only occasionally — but how do these genes get turned "on" and "off"? What specific molecules control when they are expressed?
It turns out that the regulation of such genes differs between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. For prokaryotes, most regulatory proteins are negative and therefore turn genes off. Here, the cells rely on protein–small molecule binding, in which a ligand or small molecule signals the state of the cell and whether gene expression is needed. The repressor or activator protein binds near its regulatory target: the gene. Some regulatory proteins must have a ligand attached to them to be able to bind, whereas others are unable to bind when attached to a ligand. In prokaryotes, most regulatory proteins are specific to one gene, although there are a few proteins that act more widely. For instance, some repressors bind near the start of mRNA production for an entire operon, or cluster of coregulated genes. Furthermore, some repressors have a fine-tuning system known as attenuation, which uses mRNA structure to stop both transcription and translation depending on the concentration of an operon's end-product enzymes. (In eukaryotes, there is no exact equivalent of attenuation, because transcription occurs in the nucleus and translation occurs in the cytoplasm, making this sort of coordinated effect impossible.) Yet another layer of prokaryotic regulation affects the structure of RNA polymerase, which turns on large groups of genes. Here, the sigma factor of RNA polymerase changes several times to produce heat- and desiccation-resistant spores. Here, the articles on prokaryotic regulation delve into each of these topics, leading to primary literature in many cases.
For eukaryotes, cell-cell differences are determined by expression of different sets of genes. For instance, an undifferentiated fertilized egg looks and acts quite different from a skin cell, a neuron, or a muscle cell because of differences in the genes each cell expresses. A cancer cell acts different from a normal cell for the same reason: It expresses different genes. (Using microarray analysis, scientists can use such differences to assist in diagnosis and selection of appropriate cancer treatment.) Interestingly, in eukaryotes, the default state of gene expression is "off" rather than "on," as in prokaryotes. Why is this the case? The secret lies in chromatin, or the complex of DNA and histone proteins found within the cellular nucleus. The histones are among the most evolutionarily conserved proteins known; they are vital for the well-being of eukaryotes and brook little change. When a specific gene is tightly bound with histone, that gene is "off." But how, then, do eukaryotic genes manage to escape this silencing? This is where the histone code comes into play. This code includes modifications of the histones' positively charged amino acids to create some domains in which DNA is more open and others in which it is very tightly bound up. DNA methylation is one mechanism that appears to be coordinated with histone modifications, particularly those that lead to silencing of gene expression. Small noncoding RNAs such as RNAi can also be involved in the regulatory processes that form "silent" chromatin. On the other hand, when the tails of histone molecules are acetylated at specific locations, these molecules have less interaction with DNA, thereby leaving it more open. The regulation of the opening of such domains is a hot course in research. For instance, researchers now know that complexes of proteins called chromatin remodeling complexes use ATP to repackage DNA in more open configurations. Scientists have also determined that it is possible for cells to maintain the same histone code and DNA methylation patterns through many cell divisions. This persistence without reliance on base pairing is called epigenetics, and there is abundant evidence that epigenetic changes cause many human diseases.
For transcription to occur, the area around a prospective transcription zone needs to be unwound. This is a complex process requiring the coordination of histone modifications, transcription factor binding and other chromatin remodeling activities. Once the DNA is open, specific DNA sequences are then accessible for specific proteins to bind. Many of these proteins are activators, while others are repressors; in eukaryotes, all such proteins are often called transcription factors (TFs). Each TF has a specific DNA binding domain that recognizes a 6-10 base-pair motif in the DNA, as well as an effector domain. In the test tube, scientists can find a footprint of a TF if that protein binds to its matching motif in a piece of DNA. They can also see whether TF binding slows the migration of DNA in gel electrophoresis.
For an activating TF, the effector domain recruits RNA polymerase II, the eukaryotic mRNA-producing polymerase, to begin transcription of the corresponding gene. Some activating TFs even turn on multiple genes at once. All TFs bind at the promoters just upstream of eukaryotic genes, similar to bacterial regulatory proteins. However, they also bind at regions called enhancers, which can be oriented forward or backwards and located upstream or downstream or even in the introns of a gene, and still activate gene expression. Because many genes are coregulated, studying gene expression across the whole genome via microarrays or massively parallel sequencing allows investigators to see which groups of genes are coregulated during differentiation, cancer, and other states and processes.
Most eukaryotes also make use of small noncoding RNAs to regulate gene expression. For example, the enzyme Dicer finds double-stranded regions of RNA and cuts out short pieces that can serve in a regulatory role. Argonaute is another enzyme that is important in regulation of small noncoding RNA–dependent systems. Here we offfer an introductory article on these RNAs, but more content is needed; please contact the editors if you are interested in contributing.
Imprinting is yet another process involved in eukaryotic gene regulation; this process involves the silencing of one of the two alleles of a gene for a cell's entire life span. Imprinting affects a minority of genes, but several important growth regulators are included. For some genes, the maternal copy is always silenced, while for different genes, the paternal copy is always silenced. The epigenetic marks placed on these genes during egg or sperm formation are faithfully copied into each subsequent cell, thereby affecting these genes throughout the life of the organism.
Still another mechanism that causes some genes to be silenced for an organism's entire lifetime is X inactivation. In female mammals, for instance, one of the two copies of the X chromosome is shut off and compacted greatly. This shutoff process requires transcription, the participation of two noncoding RNAs (one of which coats the inactive X chromosome), and the participation of a DNA-binding protein called CTCF. As the possible role of regulatory noncoding RNAs in this process is investigated, more information regarding X inactivation will no doubt be discovered.
Image: 'Illumination' by Patrick Morgan, from the cover of Nature Reviews Genetics, June 2006. All rights reserved.
Hoopes, L. (2008) Introduction to the gene expression and regulation course room. Nature Education 1(1):160
Tumor suppressor genes were first discovered by Alfred Knudson through his studies of the inheritance of retinoblastoma, a childhood form of retinal cancer (Knudson, 1971). Mutations that inactivate tumor suppressor genes (called loss-of-function mutations) can be caused by deletion of the tumor suppressor gene, by a point mutation that leads to a functionally inactive tumor suppressor gene-encoded protein, or by a mutation that disrupts the promoter region of the tumor suppressor gene, leading to a loss or reduction in its expression. In most cases, tumor suppressor gene loss-of-function mutations are recessive, meaning that both copies of a cell's tumor suppressor gene must be mutated in order for cancer to occur.
A bladder cancer-associated mutation in the human HRAS gene, which converts the twelfth glycine residue to a valine in the HRAS-encoded protein, was the first somatic mutation in a proto-oncogene shown to cause cancer (Reddy et al., 1982). Mutations in proto-oncogenes that convert them to oncogenes (called gain-of-function mutations) can be caused by single base-pair changes that lead to a hyperactive form of the proto-oncogene, by a gene amplification event that results in many extra copies of the proto-oncogene within the genome and higher expression levels of that gene, or by a mutation in the promoter region of the proto-oncogene that leads to an increase in its expression. Within the cell, these mutations behave in a dominant fashion, meaning that one changed allele can lead to uncontrolled cell proliferation.A exact high-throughput study shows that some types of cancer are associated with mutations in a specific proto-oncogene or in a specific pair of proto-oncogenes (Thomas et al., 2007). In this study, researchers screened 1,000 different tumor samples representing 17 different forms of cancer; the samples included individual tumor samples, primary tumor specimens, cancer cell lines, short-term cultures of tumor samples, and xenografts derived from tumor cell lines. The researchers screened 238 known oncogenic mutations in 17 different proto-oncogenes. Out of the 17 genes, 14 were mutated in at least one sample, and 34% of the 238 oncogenic mutations were detected. Thirty percent of the tumor samples contained at least one oncogenic mutation.
Figure 3 shows the association between certain forms of cancer and specific oncogenic mutations. Figure 4a shows the correlation between the various oncogenic mutations among the genes examined and the different types of tumors screened. Black bars indicate the occurrence of oncogenic mutations, and red bars indicate oncogenic mutations that occurred in pairs. Researchers found that 30% of all mutations in PIK3CA occurred in combination with a second oncogenic mutation (usually in KRAS), and that oncogenic mutations in the BRAF gene often occurred in combination with a mutation in the HRAS gene (see Figures 4b and 4c, respectively). As the researchers screened for known mutations in the 17 different proto-oncogenes, they also identified several previously unknown oncogenic mutations. The results of this study show that mutations in this set of 17 proto-oncogenes have a high propensity to lead to cancer, and that several paths can lead to cancer.
Regulation E is a regulation put forth by the Federal Reserve Board that outlines rules and procedures for electronic funds transfers (EFTs) and provides guidelines for issuers of electronic debit cards. The regulation is meant to protect banking customers who use electronic methods to transfer money.
Regulation E provides guidelines for consumers and banks or other financial institutions in the context of EFTs. These include transfers with automated teller machines (ATMs), point of sale transactions, and Automated Clearing House (ACH) systems. Rules pertaining to consumer liability for unauthorized card usage fall under this regulation as well.
Consumers and financial institutions both have an interest in understanding Regulation E’s guidelines.
Regulation E was issued by the Federal Reserve (Fed) as an implementation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1978 as a means of protecting consumers engaged in these sorts of financial transactions.
Much of Regulation E outlines the procedures that consumers must follow in reporting errors with EFTs, and the steps that a bank must take to provide recourse. Errors subject to these regulations could include the consumer’s receipt of an incorrect amount of money from an ATM, unauthorized credit or debit card activity, or an unauthorized wire transfer to or from a consumer’s account.
Generally, banks have a period of 10 business days during which to investigate a reported EFT error. This can, however, be extended to 45 business days provided that the bank provisionally credits the consumer’s account with the reportedly missing funds. Banks then must report the results of an investigation to the Fed and to the consumer.
Regulation E also outlines consumer responsibility for reporting unauthorized EFT activity, typically involving a stolen or missing card. For example, consumers must report lost or stolen credit cards no more than two days after the consumer becomes aware of the theft; otherwise, the bank has no obligation to refund losses.
Regulation E governs the issuance of debit but not credit cards, which are governed by regulations outlined in the Truth in Lending Act and implemented by the Fed as Regulation Z. However, Regulation E does govern EFT features of credit card usage.
Consumers should make sure that they are complying with federal regulations when reporting errors, to make sure that their financial institutions are complying and to avoid liability. Financial institutions should circulate these regulations internally to make sure that they have no difficulty in complying.
If you have a bank account, Regulation E has some important benefits. It delineates your rights for disputing ATM or debit card transactions if you believe an EFT has been made in error.
This includes counterfeit errors as well as accidental ones. For example, if you decide to cancel a TV streaming subscription service, but you see an additional charge for membership after the cancellation, you could ask the streaming service for a refund, and if you are refused, you could dispute the transaction with your bank according to Regulation E rules.
Very specific rules for compliance by the EFT service provider are established in Regulation E. These requirements include keeping track of consumer agreements, providing periodic statements, error resolution, reimbursement of fees incorrectly charged to the consumer, providing access to account information, disclosing a telephone number that the consumer can use to contact the financial institution, and so on.
Enforcement depends on various sources of information to identify possible issues that may lead to opening an investigation, including:
Other factors that weigh in on whether an investigation is initiated include if:
A description of the CFPB’s enforcement work (November 2020) can be found here.
Regulation E allows you to dispute these types of errors:
Regulation E limits your liability if your debit card is lost or stolen. The sooner that you report a lost or stolen debit card, the lower your maximum liability is if unauthorized charges are made with the card. The longer that you wait to report a lost or stolen debit card, the higher your personal liability will be if the card is used for unauthorized charges.
A guide to consumer liability for lost or stolen debit cards can be found here.
Regulation E was enacted under the CFPB, the regulatory agency that oversees financial products and services offered to consumers. The CFPB was created in 2010. Regulation E establishes the basic rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of consumers who use EFTs and remittance transfer services, and of the financial institutions or others that offer these services.
