Only One in Six Enterprises Treats Indirect Tax as a Standing Board Item

Among enterprises holding indirect tax reserves, 73% tie at least a quarter to tax treatments they cannot readily substantiate.

Rhea-AI Summary

Vertex (NASDAQ:VERX) released its 2026 CompOps Index, examining how enterprises govern indirect tax and coordinate tax, technology and finance functions. Only 16% report indirect tax as a standing board or executive-committee item; at 43%, it surfaces only when problems arise, if ever.

Enterprises discussing indirect tax at board level at least periodically reported externally identified errors at 4% versus 16% for those without that cadence. They also more often answered tax-authority notices within five business days: 48% versus 26%. These measures describe where errors are found, not error frequency. AI operates largely autonomously or handles routine tax work at 54% of enterprises with periodic board attention, versus 21% without it. The study covers 750 decision makers at enterprises across four countries.

Key Figures

Standing board or executive-committee item: 16% Tax surfaces only when a problem arises: 43% Errors identified externally: 4% vs. 16% +5 more

Standing board or executive-committee item

16%

Enterprises reporting indirect tax as a standing item

Tax surfaces only when a problem arises

43%

Enterprises reporting this cadence, if ever

Errors identified externally

4% vs. 16%

Enterprises discussing indirect tax at least periodically vs. those that do not

Notice response within five business days

48% vs. 26%

Enterprises discussing indirect tax at least periodically vs. those that do not

AI handles routine tax-workflow tasks autonomously

54% vs. 21%

Enterprises discussing indirect tax at least periodically vs. those that do not

Funded strategic technology-roadmap priority

85% vs. 5%

IT leaders in the most capable vs. least capable AI tier

Automated monitoring for regulatory changes

55% vs. 9%

Most capable vs. least capable AI tier

Reserves tied to treatments not readily substantiated

73% report at least a quarter

Among enterprises holding indirect tax reserves

Key Terms

double-blind

1 terms

double-blind technical

"based on a double-blind survey of 750 decision makers"

A double-blind process means that neither the people conducting an activity nor the people involved know certain key details, such as who is receiving a treatment or a placebo. This approach helps prevent bias from influencing the results, making the outcome more trustworthy. For investors, it ensures that decisions or judgments are based on unbiased information rather than preconceived opinions or expectations.

AI-generated analysis. How Rhea-AI works. Not financial advice.

See more from StockTitan in Google Search and AI answers. Adds StockTitan as a preferred source · opens Google

Add on Google Not now

The 2026 Vertex CompOps™ Index finds that enterprises where indirect tax reaches the board regularly, are four times less likely to say errors are most often identified externally and nearly twice as likely to answer tax-authority notices within five business days

KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa., Nov. 10, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Vertex, Inc. (NASDAQ:VERX) (“Vertex” or the “Company”), the Decision-to-Defense™ global indirect tax and compliance company, today released the 2026 Vertex CompOps™ Index, a global study of how enterprises govern indirect tax and compliance, and how closely tax, IT, and finance work together to run it.

At most enterprises, indirect tax has no standing place in the room where strategy is set. Only one in six (16%) reports it as a standing item at board or executive-committee level, and at 43%, it surfaces only when a problem arises, if ever. Those that discuss it there at least periodically look markedly different. They are one-quarter as likely to say their errors are usually identified by external parties (4% vs. 16%), nearly twice as likely to answer a tax-authority notice within five business days (48% vs. 26%), and half as likely to make and verify taxability changes entirely by hand (13% vs. 26%).

“Indirect tax is one of the few functions where determinations are made continuously, exposure is lasting, but conversations about risk are episodic and after the fact,” said Allison Cerra, Chief Marketing Officer at Vertex. “The enterprises running indirect tax best govern it like any other strategic function, as a recurring part of how the business is run, not only when issues surface. The gap between those two postures is not a matter of scale. It is a matter of attention.”

The gaps extend to AI. Among enterprises that discuss indirect tax at least periodically at the board level, 54% say AI now operates largely autonomously or handles routine work in their tax workflows, compared with 21% of those that do not. They are also more likely to have a dedicated budget and a named executive owner for AI in indirect tax.

The Index also sorts enterprises into four tiers of AI capability in indirect tax and compliance, scored on data and system readiness, enablement, governance, and deployment. The most capable tier (13% of enterprises studied) treats indirect tax as an investment priority rather than a maintenance item: 85% of its IT leaders describe it as a funded strategic priority on the technology roadmap, against 5% in the least capable tier. The most capable tier also stays ahead of regulatory change: 55% proactively monitor for changes with automated updates, against 9% of the least capable tier.

Every group shares one problem: proving their tax position. About half of enterprises (52%) take a more conservative approach when they lack sufficient evidence, and among those holding indirect tax reserves, 73% say at least a quarter of the reserve is tied to tax treatments they cannot readily substantiate, not because the law is unclear.

“The findings suggest that operational maturity in indirect tax is less about organization size and more about governance,” said Kevin Permenter, Research Director, Enterprise Applications at IDC. “With compliance requirements becoming increasingly continuous, organizations that integrate tax into broader business and technology decisions appear far better positioned to adapt to change, manage risk proactively, and maintain visibility across the compliance lifecycle.”

The 2026 Vertex CompOps Index reveals where indirect tax risk hides and how leading enterprises get ahead of what's next. It is available at https://vertexcompops.kinsta.cloud/.

About Vertex  
Vertex is the Decision-to-Defense™ global indirect tax and compliance company. Vertex helps enterprises bring control to indirect tax and compliance across the full transaction lifecycle — from tax determination and e-invoicing through reporting, filing, and audit defense — to make outcomes easier to prove and improve over time. Trusted by more than 60% of the Fortune 500, Vertex combines decades of tax expertise, deep global tax and compliance knowledge, and embedded integrations to help organizations operate globally with confidence. With headquarters in North America and offices in South America and Europe, Vertex's purpose is to ensure businesses and communities thrive through trusted transactions.

For more information, visit www.vertexinc.com or follow us on X and LinkedIn, or subscribe on YouTube.

About the research
The 2026 Vertex CompOps Index is based on a double-blind survey of 750 decision makers at enterprises with at least $250 million in annual revenue and 1,000 or more employees, conducted by Emerald Research Group on behalf of Vertex in August and September 2026. Respondents were drawn from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, and spanned information technology, tax, and finance functions, each with authority over or influence on enterprise indirect tax and compliance technology decisions. Respondents were not informed of the study’s sponsor. Results are weighted.

The Index sorts enterprises into four tiers of AI capability, scored from 0 to 100. References to the “least capable” and “most capable” tiers refer to the lowest and highest of those four, which represent 20% and 13% of the enterprises studied, respectively. The tiers are not quartiles. Comparisons by board-level cadence are based on finance and tax respondents (n=369) and describe differences between organizations at a single point in time; they do not establish that board-level attention causes any outcome. Certain measures were asked only of specific functions and are reported on that base. The study measured where errors are identified, not how frequently they occur; no comparison of error rates between organizations is implied. Full methodology is available in the report.

Copyright © 2026 Vertex, Inc. All rights reserved. The information contained herein is intended for information purposes only, may change at any time in the future, and is not legal or tax advice. Any product direction and potential roadmap information is not a guarantee, may not be incorporated into any contract, and is not a commitment to deliver any material, code, or functionality. This information should not be relied upon in making purchasing, legal, or tax decisions. The development, release, and timing of any features or functionality described for Vertex’s products remain at the sole discretion of Vertex, Inc. Any statements in this release that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements as defined in the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties described in Vertex’s filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations. Vertex cautions readers not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which Vertex has no obligation to update and which speak only as of their dates.

Vertex Company Contact: mediainquiries@vertexinc.com  

FAQ

AI-generated questions and answers. How Rhea-AI works. Not financial advice.

How was the 2026 Vertex CompOps Index survey conducted?

Emerald Research Group conducted a double-blind survey of 750 decision makers on behalf of Vertex in August and September 2026. Participants represented enterprises with at least $250 million in annual revenue and 1,000 or more employees in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and France. Respondents were not told the sponsor, and results are weighted.

Does the Vertex CompOps Index show that board attention causes better tax compliance outcomes?

No causal relationship is established. Comparisons by board-level discussion frequency use finance and tax respondents (n=369) and describe organizational differences at a single point in time. Certain measures were asked only of specific functions and are reported on those respondent bases.