CFO Brew helps finance pros navigate their roles with insights into risk management, compliance, and strategy through our newsletter, virtual events, and digital guides.

CFO Brew

Natasha Piñon

cfobrew.com

 SEC cracks down on two investment advisors for ‘AI washing’ 

AI washing gets hung out to dry. 

SEC cracks down on two investment advisors for ‘AI washing’ 

Alex Zank

In SOTU, Biden backs higher taxes on corporations, wealthy

The president's speech sets campaign themes. 

Courtney Vien

Companies aren’t as ready for ESG regs as they think they are

There are still gaps between their ESG goals and their capabilities.

A clipboard with a checkmark icon denoting financial compliance

Compliance

As global CFO for delivery at Uber Eats, Michiel Boere helped take the company from losing a billion dollars a year to being profitable. In 2023, he became CFO at another company with a global footprint: HR software startup Remote. Clients can use Remote to recruit, hire, and pay employees and contractors across borders.

Boere spoke with CFO Brew about how, in both those roles, he had to navigate a complex multinational compliance landscape.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

You’re the first CFO at Remote. What changes did you make when you started?

As a CFO, I have a three-to-five-year roadmap in my head of all the things that we need to do within finance to get the company ready for the next phase, and that includes things like proper cash management, a good global tax structure, understanding the unit economics of the company, making sure that our collections process works really well…And then it’s about getting the right people in place and giving them the right amount of support to go on a journey from startup to scale up to eventually a public company.

It’s got to be challenging to keep up with the compliance requirements in all those different countries. How does Remote handle that?

Number one, we have actually developed AI ourselves to alert us and customers of changes in regulations globally. The second is that we have implemented what I would call a continuous audit process, where we continuously audit our operations in all countries around the world…essentially a full screening of all the requirements that are there in a country. For example, there are many countries where you need to do gender pay gap reporting, and there are many countries where you need to do ESG reporting, and there are, of course, VAT returns everywhere. There are statutory filings. Then there’s financial audits, there’s IT audits.

What advice would you give someone who aspires to become a CFO?

Do as many different things as possible during the early stages of your career…If you want to become the copilot of the CEO, you need to have a reasonable understanding of how marketing works, of how operations works, how pricing works. It’s not just about tax and accounting, but about understanding all the facets of the business.

What were some of the decisions you made that helped Uber Eats become profitable?

A lot of pricing decisions, and then a lot of portfolio management. We also shut down [operations in] a few countries…You’re going to invest the money in places where it works, and you’re going to not invest the money in places where it doesn’t work. Probably one of the most important jobs of a CFO is to organize that capital allocation.

In some countries, for example, you can have drivers deliver food with a car. In some other countries, that’s not possible for various reasons. You can only have people on bicycles, and in some countries you had walkers…Geography and local regulations and local labor laws, of course, really impacted the dynamics of the business, and therefore the profitability potential or the unit economics of [a] country.

A portrait of Michiel Boere, the CFO of global HR software startup Remote.

Laying the groundwork for growth

As CFO of a border-crossing startup, Michiel Boere keeps an eye on global compliance

 thestruggling chipmaker Intel has agreed to give the US a 10% stake, White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett said the deal might be the first of others like it.

“The president has made it clear all the way back to the campaign that he thinks, in the end, it would be great if the US could start to build up a sovereign wealth fund,” Hassett 

. “I’m sure that, at some point, there will be more transactions, if not in this industry, in other industries.”

The Intel deal specifically came about because the company received money from the Biden-era CHIPS Act, and Trump wanted to position the federal government to stand to benefit from that funding, he said. Hassett said that when the federal government has given money to major companies in the past, “the taxpayers have received nothing in return.”

He claimed that Uncle Sam’s partial ownership of Intel does not give the government any say in how the company runs itself and that there’s also precedent in the US government owning companies, Hassett said, pointing to mortgage financers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as examples. (According to the company’s SEC 8-K filing, the government is purchasing common stock and will be required to vote its shares as directed by Intel’s board of directors.)

CNBC anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin pressed Hassett on whether the government will use its influence to pressure other companies to buy Intel’s chips. Hassett replied, “I don’t expect that’s what’s going to happen,” claiming that Intel will instead use federal money paired with an infusion of private investment to “get its act together.”

 Trump is serious about the US establishing its own sovereign wealth fund. The president issued an 

 in February for the secretaries of Treasury and Commerce to draft a plan for creating one.

Hassett said that “many, many” other countries have sovereign wealth funds. Examples include Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, the China Investment Corporation, and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.

split image of the white house and the intel logo 

More Intel-like deals could be on the way

The US government’s stake in the chipmaker fits with Trump’s desire to create a sovereign wealth fund, advisor says.

Jesse Klein

 since the Trump administration took over. Every day seems to bring new 

—that change what CFOs need to know and do about tariffs. But amid the shifting landscape, many companies may not have the necessary controls in place to ensure tariff compliance, experts told CFO Brew.

While some sectors, such as apparel, footwear, and glassware, have been dealing with tariffs for a long time, this is new territory for others, including toy manufacturers, businesses buying agricultural products, and producers of electronics or machinery, according to Lenny Feldman, a tariff lawyer and managing partner at Sandler, Travis and Rosenberg.

And that means a lot of companies will have to play catch-up. Board members are starting to ask how their companies ensure they’re handling duties appropriately and staying in compliance, according to Daniel Tannebaum, a partner at the Oliver Wyman consultancy and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank. Many of these companies don’t have a dedicated Customs compliance position because “there really wasn’t a need, because the tariffs were low,” he added. So now they need to get up to speed and realize how exposed their business is to tariff charges.

“They really need to understand, what is their role in their supply chain,” Feldman said. “These different ways that the supply chains are structured, a lot of people in the C-suite have not even thought about that.”

Depending on where your company sits in the supply chain and how your products are classified, you could get caught in the 

, even if your company isn’t the one evading tariffs.

According to Feldman, Customs holds both the consignee (the party accepting delivery) and the importer responsible for tariff compliance. That means if your company is listed as the consignee, you could be on the hook for ensuring your importer pays the required tariffs.

For example, in 2014, a company executive at Trek Leather was 

 for Customs infractions, even though he didn’t act as the importer of record. 

, the Federal Circuit court found that the defendant could be liable because the phrase “introduction of goods” was broad enough to cover “actions that bring goods to the threshold of the process of entry by moving goods into CBP custody in the United States.”

Feldman said that most of the time, the importer lists itself as the consignee, but it’s not always the case. These days, importers, suppliers, and the final brands are all conferring with each other to ensure everyone complies, “because the stakes are higher.”

 But it’s not all about liability. Tariff-noob companies also are learning the tricks to bring down their tariff costs. There are legitimate ways to do this without relocating all production domestically. According to Customs and Border Protection, the 

 allows importers to use “the first sale in a series of transactions as the basis for calculating Customs duties,” according to law firm 

. Companies can remove costs unrelated to production, such as international shipping costs, foreign inland freight prices, and security and handling costs to decrease the value of the tariffed product, according to Feldman.

“[The valuation] didn’t matter to them before,” he said. “They would just get a full price from their supplier that included all these costs, and maybe they had to pay it. It didn’t matter because their duty rate was zero.”

 Over the years, companies have tried lots of different ways to put their products in lower-tariffed categories, sometimes riding the line between fair and fraudulent—like reclassifying their products with a few minor tweaks to incur lower tariffs—with mixed success. 

 on their shoes so they could be classified as slippers, to get a 70% discount from the shoe tariff. In 2003, Marvel argued that X-Men action figures were “non-human toys” instead of dolls, which have a higher tariff. Between 2003 and 2013, Ford’s tariff engineering trick was to classify its Transit Connect minivan as a car instead of a truck. That one was 

 by the DOJ, and Ford had to pay a $365 million settlement in 2024.

But Feldman said these classification sleights of hand won’t go as far now, because Trump’s tariffs are country-wide—though he still sees some companies trying to get creative. He told CFO Brew that some electronic component suppliers are trying to reclassify themselves as primarily serving the auto industry to qualify for the 

,” or route a product through a lower-tariffed country to get a better rate without doing any actual value add in that country. In the end, Feldman has simple advice for companies new to dealing with tariffs:

“You should be classifying properly. You should be valuing properly. You should make sure you’re declaring the proper country of origin.”

The most effective way for companies to protect themselves and ensure compliance with tariff laws is by maintaining thorough documentation, Feldman advised. For valuation costs, 

 commercial invoices, purchase orders, documentation showing the costs of materials, and the flow of them into the factory. To prove origin, companies need documentation that their machinery, facility, and employees can “manufacture that merchandise and at that volume,” according to Feldman.

Companies might also need to provide lease or ownership agreements for factory facilities, employee paystubs, and in-depth records of the production process. Feldman suggests CFOs run a mock Customs review with all the documentation for origin, value, and classification—following a questionnaire similar to the one Customs uses.

But importers aren’t likely to send these documents on a weekly or monthly basis. Companies need to keep track of all that information on their own.

“You better make sure that you have all that information there,” Feldman said. “that you actually manufactured the merchandise at that time, not a year ago, and you have records from your warehouse that you're getting all the components and inputs and materials delivered at that time, so you could substantiate a production review.”

How CFOs can stay compliant on tariffs

Sectors new to tariff law are learning the importance of documentation and how to reduce their tariff burden without risking evasion charges.

Update: On August 8, multiple sources reported that President Trump removed Billy Long as IRS commissioner.

It’s okay, Billy, we’ve all gotten confused about due dates at a new job before.

 that it hasn’t set an opening date for next year’s filing season. This comes after new IRS Commissioner Billy Long told an audience at the Tax Summit of the National Association of Enrolled Agents in Salt Lake City in July that he pushed for an earlier tax filing start date “around Presidents Day,” but that IRS staff wanted more time. So, we guess it’s a case of “he said, but they didn’t?”

His heart might have been in the right place, even if he did put his foot in his mouth. In 2026, the IRS will probably need extra time to prepare for filing season because staffing will be at the 

 since 2019, and Republicans have cut its budget by almost 40%. In 2026, Presidents Day falls on February 16, marking a later start date than in recent years, which have typically begun in late January or early February, the Journal of Accountancy reported.

 with tax policy, or inside any government tax department. Instead, he made his name as an auctioneer, in real estate, and as an AM radio host in Missouri, before becoming a congressman in 2011.

 with the tax code involved trying to eliminate it entirely and replace it with a flat tax system. He is not an accountant or CPA, but has dabbled in 

Don’t be fooled by the head of the IRS—there’s no start date for tax filing season yet

Commissioner Long jumped the gun on announcing filing kickoff, prompting clarification from the IRS.

On Tuesday, Procter & Gamble forecast a disappointing fiscal 2026 outlook, adding that the company would raise prices on some products to offset a large tariff hit.

The downbeat earnings report arrived the day after the company said its CEO, Jon Moeller, was vacating the role, with COO Shailesh Jejurikar taking over as CEO.

The household basics company, which is behind everything from Bounty paper towels to Pampers diapers, anticipated a $1 billion pretax hit because of higher costs from tariffs in its fiscal 2026 guidance.

P&G expects annual sales to grow between 1% and 5%, compared to the 3.09% growth LSEG analysts expected.

 for that lower guidance. “There is a level of baseline uncertainty that we reflect in the guidance range,” Moeller said on a post-earnings call. “To the extent that people are frustrated with the lack of certainty, and the breadth of the range, trust me, there's no one more frustrated with that than I.”

P&G’s total tariff hit can be broken down to a $200 million impact from items imported from China, another $200 million from Canada, and $600 million from tariffs on goods in the rest of the world, according to CFO Andre Schulten.

He added that while the company has invested in US production, certain ingredients and materials will still have to be imported, 

. While the company suggested that it’ll be able to balance some of the tariff hit with productivity changes, it will raise prices on approximately a quarter of its US products in the mid-single-digit range this quarter.

That might not be the end of the world for P&G. “We believe that customers will still pay up for these products,” Kim Forrest, chief investment officer at Bokeh Capital Partners, 

. “During soft economic times, consumers may trade down but P&G has many products that people are willing to pay up for, regardless of tariffs or a slow economy.”

Procter & Gamble joins the ranks of companies reporting significant tariff hits 

The household basics company reported a $1 billion in tariff costs. 

Things just got a wee bit less volatile for all the CFOs who are 

 (so, pretty much, all the CFOs). The US and the EU have agreed to a 

, easing fears that the two superpowers would enter a 

The US will levy a 15% tariff on most EU imports, including cars and pharmaceuticals, the New York Times reported. Certain items will face zero tariffs from either the US or EU, such as aircraft and plane parts, semiconductor equipment, and some chemicals, agricultural products, and generic drugs.

More categories of goods may be added to this “zero-for-zero” list in days to come as negotiations over the deal are finalized. The existing 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports will also still apply to EU exports of those materials, for now.

The EU has also agreed to buy $750 billion worth of energy from the US over the next three years, and increase its investment in US industries by $600 billion. It’s 

 how this part of the deal will work, as EU member states, and not the EU bloc as a whole, will be responsible for purchasing the energy and making the investments. The US will also have 

President Donald Trump threatened the EU with 30% tariffs if it didn’t ink a trade deal with the US by August 1. EU leaders, on the other hand, hoped for 10% tariffs, like the US levied upon the UK in its trade deal. The 15% tariffs the parties landed upon are far higher than the 2.7% “trade-weighted tariff” the EU charged and the 2.2% the US levied prior to the second Trump administration.

The deal struck some observers as an unsatisfying but acceptable alternative to a trade war. EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic described the agreement as “clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances,” Reuters reported, while Wolfgang Große Entrup, head of the German Chemical Industry Association, remarked, “Those who expect a hurricane are grateful for a storm.”

Analysis predicts the new tariffs could bring the EU’s gross domestic product down 

, according to the Wall Street Journal. Economist Joseph Brusuelas told the Journal the deal appears “broadly favorable to many US companies,” though he noted there will naturally be some downstream effects. EU automakers, for instance, may be prompted to shutter their US plants.

US and EU agree to 15% tariffs on most EU imports

The lopsided deal is still preferable to a trade war, EU observers say. 

In an era when Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg are household names, many C-suiters can be considered public figures. That status, though, comes with risks, as the 

“The ability for people to use available public data to track the movement of a CEO is much easier today,” Peter Chan, a partner at law firm Baker McKenzie, told CFO Brew. “The truth is, a CEO doesn’t get to take off his hat and say ‘I’m now a private citizen.’”

The elevated public profile of CEOs and other executives has increased the desire for them—and, in some cases, 

—to have security. Companies’ spending on security for top executives was on the rise even before Thompson’s murder. The S&P 500’s median security costs for CEOs 

 between 2019 and 2023, Glass Lewis analysis shows.

The SEC, though, considers security spending a perk, and requires companies to disclose it as part of executive compensation in annual filings. Chan, who formerly worked for the SEC, and his colleague, Baker McKenzie partner Jennifer Broder, argue that ought to change.

They also believe that the SEC should rethink classifying executives’ personal travel as a perk. Since 2006, when the SEC’s rules regarding perks received their last major expansion, the lines between “personal” and “business” travel have blurred, Broder told CFO Brew. Technology has advanced, and boards now expect C-suiters to be available around the clock, to travel frequently to offices that might be scattered across the globe, and to be working en route, she and Chan pointed out. “But the SEC has taken an expansive view of what’s considered personal,” Broder said.

 discussion with public company executives and other stakeholders to review executive compensation disclosure requirements, and it opened a public comment period on the topic.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins believes the area is ripe for an overhaul. He’s described the current disclosure requirements as a “Frankenstein patchwork of rules” that are 

Perks are one area up for review. During the roundtable, Commissioner Hester Pierce questioned whether companies should be required to 

 of the amounts spent on executive perks like rides on corporate jets, car services, or overseas housing allowances. Such disclosures, she said, seemed intended to merely satisfy the 

 and to “entertain the onlooker rather than educate the investor.”

 It’s important that investors have information about perks, the Glass Lewis report asserts. A survey from the firm found that “a majority of investors expressed concern that excessive perquisites may indicate broader pay concerns,” and that directors should be accountable for limiting excessive perk compensation.

But questions remain as to whether items like security and travel should still count as perks and therefore be considered part of executive compensation, or whether it would be more appropriate to classify them as business expenses. Chan argues that making some perks part of compensation can make an executive’s salary look artificially inflated. It can have “the unfortunate perverse effect of distorting the information to investors,” he said.

Investors may not need the level of granularity around perks that the SEC requires, Chan said. If a board has determined that an executive’s travel or security are appropriate business expenses, they’ll still be “disclosed in the sense that they’re aggregated in the financial statements,” he said. He finds it hard to see, he said, why having such information itemized “would be, as a standalone, material to investors.”