CFOs face a tax environment that seems to grow heavier each year, and many are quietly reconsidering how the work is organized. This column looks at why older models struggle to keep pace with current demands and how a blended structure may restore clarity. It also explains the role of an outsourced tax director, a position that has become a steady point of coordination for many companies. The discussion offers a practical framework for CFOs and notes what CPAs should understand as this shift continues.
During most tax filing seasons, many CFOs have a similar concern. They are not anxious about the rules; they are uneasy because their tax functions always seem behind. The workload grows, deadlines compress, and the team rarely expands in proportion to the challenges. This tension usually grinds under the surface until something slips.
Many CFOs try to manage the gap by giving the controller partial responsibility for tax. It works for a while, until it becomes clear that one person cannot monitor everything that feeds a return, a forecast, or a lender’s request for detail.
Midmarket CFOs want steadier footing. They want reliable information but can’t afford to build an entire department of tax specialists. Internal teams can only absorb so much of the rising complexity, so CFOs turn to outside CPA firms. As capable as the firms are, they lack visibility into changes in the business. These limitations have pushed many leaders toward a blended model as a practical response to an overworked system.
Traditional approaches are comfortably familiar. Yet, many CFOs sense a mismatch between what they expect and what tax models consistently produce.
Internal teams that once moved through predictable cycles now find routine work stretching far longer than it once did. The strain tends to reveal itself when calendars are already tight. Seasonal help once provided breathing room, although the entire market now peaks at the same time, making resources less available and more expensive. Fees move upward, even as engagement teams suffer from turnover. The work gets done, but it feels chaotic.
Neither the all-internal nor the all-external structure fits the current environment. One lacks depth; the other lacks proximity. CFOs are caught in the middle, wanting a model that provides both on-demand and a reasonable cost.
Years ago, tax teams planned their year around a set of filings that rarely changed. That rhythm has faded. Compliance cycles move faster and work arrives in overlapping bursts that leave no time to reset. Year-end seems to last all 12 months.
Companies that once viewed themselves as simple operations now find they have footprints in more places than expected. A new online channel can trigger filing obligations in states that were never part of the original plan. A vendor arrangement or a software subscription may introduce an international touchpoint that no one saw coming. Tax work becomes more intricate without any dramatic change in the business model.
Finance teams add another layer. They want quicker answers from tax because their own reporting cycles have tightened. Forecasts rely on finer details than they once did, and older workflows struggle to produce those details at the pace required. All of this creates an environment where the structure around tax matters as much as the technical work itself.
In response, many CFOs are adopting a hybrid model that blends internal familiarity with outside depth. Internal teams stay close to the data. They know which reconciliations never line up neatly and which processes tend to crack under pressure. Their view into business activities allows them to catch issues before they grow. External advisers step in where specialized judgment is needed. Their experience with multistate filings, credit studies, and unusual fact patterns helps when an emerging rule requires a closer look. They can study a technical issue in a way that an overstretched internal team might not have the time or expertise to address.
This mix lets the company retain control without creating bottlenecks. Routine work stays inside. Technical items go outside. Coordinated workflows begin to feel like a relay race, in which each person knows when to pass the baton. Internal staff often welcome the clarity because outside specialists provide guardrails they can follow throughout the year.
The challenge of blending internal and external tax support is that the work can feel scattered. Information flows between internal finance teams and individual specialists at external tax firms, but no one stands in the middle to interpret the whole picture. The outsourced tax director role arose to fill the need for someone who understands the business well enough to proactively identify and evaluate complex issues, guide decisions, and coordinate the work of internal teams and outside specialists.
Their responsibilities seldom fit a traditional job description. The director monitors calendars, keeps workpapers moving, and notices the items that fall between teams. They talk with staff when data appears incomplete, then turn to outside advisers when deeper judgment is needed. CFOs often want exactly this kind of connective role.
The director is the person the CFO calls when there is an unexpected inquiry or a concern that a new business line creates new exposures. The director turns those concerns into practical steps and explains how each choice affects compliance and cash.
Continuity matters as well. The director stays long enough to learn patterns, weak points, and the company culture that shapes how work actually gets done. Advisory firms usually appreciate the structure because it reduces rework and miscommunication. When the fit is right, the director becomes the anchor that holds the hybrid model together.
Most CFOs want fewer surprises. Tax issues tend to surface at awkward moments, and a model with clear accountability helps reduce that unpredictability. CFOs are overwhelmed by the time and effort required to interface with multiple specialists at their tax firms. An outsourced tax director is the CFO’s single point of contact, synthesizing what matters.
Trust also plays a part. Companies connect with a person, not a rotating team. The director learns where the data has gaps, which questions return every quarter, and which planning items deserve early attention. That familiarity feels like filling a seat that had been empty for too long.
Strategic oversight is another driver. CFOs do not need technical memos every month, yet they want someone scanning the environment and proactively flagging issues. Even small observations can prevent big problems later.
The hiring market for senior tax talent remains tight, and budgets continue to stretch. The hybrid model gives companies access to deeper judgment without adding a full-time role. The work does not become simple, but it becomes steadier.
Some CPAs assume a hybrid structure reduces their involvement. In fact, the opposite is true: CFOs want advisers who understand how tax fits into the daily rhythm of finance and who can proactively identify blind spots. Technical skill still matters, but operational awareness has become equally important.
Project management stands out as a differentiator. CPAs who track deliverables and keep tasks moving often become the advisers a CFO keeps closest. Clear communication matters as well. CFOs do not want lengthy narratives; they want explanations that are understandable and connect tax decisions to cash and reporting. Technology is another consideration. Advisers who work easily with shared portals and electronic workpapers reduce the scramble to meet deadlines.
The outsourced tax director is not the CPA firm’s competition: in many cases, the director depends on firms for technical reviews and compliance support. CPAs who optimize these arrangements will thrive as long-term partners.
CFOs considering a change to a more modern tax function should first ask whether the problems they are looking to solve are structural or simply the result of one busy year. Develop a plan using this simple framework:
Keep the framework flexible as conditions change. As the business evolves, the mix of internal work, outsourced support, and leadership will shift with it.
The hybrid model becomes useful in several familiar situations. One involves rapid expansion across states. A distributor may add new territories and suddenly face a filing footprint that overwhelms a small team. A blended structure usually brings order before issues reach an auditor.
Another situation might be after a private equity acquisition. Reporting and cash flow forecasting expectations become sharper, lenders ask more precise questions, and the controller may not have the time or depth to manage the new demands. An outsourced director helps build processes that match investors’ expectations.
Some CFOs adopt the model because they carry too much themselves. Tax receives attention only when deadlines loom. The director becomes a steady point of contact who prevents issues from accumulating quietly.
All of these situations share one thread: the company’s tax needs outgrow its internal capabilities. The hybrid model does not replace advisers or diminish the team; it aligns the pieces that already exist.
CFOs know tax work will never be simple, but it should be manageable. Growing complexity and limited staffing have pushed leaders to reconsider how the function is built. The hybrid model offers stability without requiring a full department or a complete handoff to outside firms.
The outsourced tax director sits at the center of this shift, offering clarity, steadiness, and continuity. CPAs fit naturally into the model and often see stronger relationships as a result. No single structure solves everything, but this approach gives companies a foundation that matches the pace and complexity of modern finance. Leaders who embrace it usually navigate the tax landscape with fewer disruptions and a clearer sense of direction.
Anthony J. Borrelli is a staff accountant at Maillie LLP in West Chester. He holds a bachelor’s degree in accounting from the University of Pittsburgh and is committed to maintaining compliance and upholding the integrity of accounting processes.