A while back, I spoke with the CFO of a fast-scaling SaaS company. They had expanded into 64 countries in just a few years, and their internal structure had grown just as fast—but not always by design. The CFO admitted their teams had formed organically, picking up responsibilities as needed rather than through intentional planning. As we discussed finance efficiency and autonomous finance, he leaned in and asked:

Because the world is quickly moving to a future in which real-time transaction reporting is the single most dominant instrument for global tax compliance. Real-time transaction reporting requires a real-time tax function. And that’s only possible with technology deeply embedded in the fabric of business, finance, and tax processes.

And here’s why this question matters more than ever. The world is shifting to a future where real-time transaction reporting will be the single most dominant instrument for global tax compliance. And you can’t have real-time tax without real-time technology. This isn’t a ‘nice-to-have’—it’s becoming a fundamental requirement for global business. Tax technology can no longer sit on the sidelines; it has to be deeply embedded in business, finance, and operations.

Yet, I’ve found that companies structure their tax technology functions in dramatically different ways. Some empower tax teams with dedicated technology ownership, while others rely on finance and engineering teams that—frankly—don’t always prioritize tax.

So, how do you design a tax technology function that works? One that drives efficiency, ensures compliance, is future-proof, and doesn’t get buried under a never-ending backlog on the company's Engineering roadmap?

Let’s break down how leading digital companies—companies that I work with daily—organize their tax technology functions and, more importantly, how you can assess what works best for your company.

The 3 Most Common Tax Tech Organizational Models

There’s no single “right” way to structure tax technology, but most companies fall into one of these three rough categories. Understanding their trade-offs can help you decide which approach best fits your business.

1. Tax as an Advisor (Tech Fully Embedded in Finance/Eng/Product)

💡 Best for: Companies with strong Eng and Finance teams that can prioritize tax

How It Works

• The tax team provides requirements and is sometimes responsible for content decisions but doesn’t directly manage technology
• A tax technology function may exist as a liaison between Tax, Eng, Finance, or Product. Sometimes, this also sits within the FinTech product function
• Engineering and product teams own most of the technology and strategy decisions

Pros

1. ✅ Deep integration into finance and product workflows; Product and Eng teams know the infrastructure of the entire business well
2. ✅ Access to strong engineering resources (if Eng/Product prioritizes tax)

Cons

1. ❌ Tax lacks direct decision-making power over technology choices, which sometimes results in sub-optimal decisions
2. ❌ Eng/Product may deprioritize tax needs in favor of other FinTech projects, leading to slow execution

➡ Seen at: Large global digital platforms and tech companies where tax is embedded into broader finance and product ecosystems

2. Standalone Tax Technology Team (part of Tax function)

💡 Best for: Companies with complex tax needs and high automation ambitions

How It Works

• A dedicated tax technology team sits within the tax function
• Team members include tax technology experts, engineers, and sometimes product managers. Engineers and Product roles often don’t directly report but are part of a matrix organization. Tax, however, owns the roadmap and is responsible for these team's capacity and deployment of projects
• The team builds or oversees in-house tools and integrations with external solutions

Pros

1. ✅ Tax has full control over priorities and execution
2. ✅ Faster execution without waiting on IT or Finance

Cons

1. ❌ Requires dedicated budget and dedicated engineering/product resources
2. ❌ Risk of siloed solutions if not well integrated with wider Finance and Eng teams

➡ Seen at: Global enterprises with complex VAT/GST compliance, like global marketplace/platforms

3. The Wild West (No Clear Tax Tech Ownership)

💡 Best for: Nobody—this setup leads to confusion and inefficiency

How It Works

• No dedicated tax technology team exists
• Tax, Eng, product, and/or finance each handle pieces of tax and tech, but no one owns the function or strategy
• Tax technology decisions are made reactively, leading to inconsistent execution

Cons

1. ❌ Unclear ownership = constant project delays
2. ❌ Poor system integration leads to delivery and compliance risks
3. ❌ No ownership after implementation, leading to ‘abandoned’ tech
4. ❌ High reliance on external consultants (which can be both expensive and slow)

➡ Seen at: Unfortunately, many companies today…there are a lot of companies that haven’t formalized tax technology and haven’t been able to help CFOs understand that a sound tax technology strategy is an integral component of finance efficiency, drives ROI, aligns with the journey to an autonomous finance function and most importantly, avoids last-minute scrambles and business disruption. A shame because most of today’s CFOs have a good appreciation for predictability and efficiency.

How to Choose the Right Model for Your Company?

First, look at the logical key factors influencing your business situation and potential solutions.

Every company’s tax technology setup reflects its business priorities, leadership mindset, and operational maturity. Some companies invest early in automation, while others patch together solutions as tax complexity grows. If you want a tax tech function that works—one that doesn’t become an afterthought or a resource bottleneck—you need to structure it intentionally.

Here are the biggest factors that determine how tax technology should be organized in your company:

1. Organizational Size and Structure

Are you a global enterprise juggling VAT and GST compliance across 60+ countries? Or are you a regional player with a simpler setup? Large, centralized tax teams tend to drive automation aggressively, while decentralized organizations often struggle with fragmented, inconsistent solutions. An acquisition-driven organization tends to struggle and benefit even more from a sound tax technology strategy. Generally, the more complex and vast your footprint, the greater the need for a structured tax technology approach.

2. Leadership’s Commitment to Automation

Most modern CFOs and CTOs see automation as a game-changer, willing to invest in tax technology as part of a broader finance transformation. Others see it as a “nice to have” or—worse—a necessary evil. If leadership doesn’t actively prioritize (tax) technology, tax teams often end up fighting for Engineering resources and struggling with reactive, piecemeal solutions.

3. Tax’s Impact on the Business

For digital-first companies—think SaaS, marketplaces, and e-commerce—indirect tax isn’t just a compliance issue. It directly impacts pricing, conversion, invoicing, cash flow, checkout flows, and customer experience. The more tax interacts with the business, the more critical it is to have a well-integrated, technology-driven tax function.

4. Maturity of the Tax Function

Younger companies often start with spreadsheets, manual processes, or basic off-the-shelf solutions. As they scale, they either develop in-house tax technology expertise or rely on finance technology teams to automate tax workflows. The sooner a company proactively invests in a tax technology strategy, the fewer painful compliance bottlenecks it will face.

5. The Role of Finance Technology

If your company has a strong finance technology team, tax can often be embedded within it. But if FinTech is understaffed or ‘weak’, underfunded, or overloaded, tax teams may need a dedicated tax technology function to ensure compliance and automation don’t get deprioritized.

How to get to an answer?

If you’re trying to design or optimize your tax technology function, use this structured approach:

1. Assess Your Current State

• How is tax technology currently handled? Just writing this down honestly and objectively can be an eye-opener
• What are the biggest pain points? (e.g., compliance risk, slow automation, lack of IT/Engineering support)

2. Identify Key Stakeholders

• Who owns tax technology today? Again, being super clear on who makes the end decisions creates unexpected clarity
• Which teams need to be involved in decision-making?

3. Define Success Metrics

• Most organizations optimize for things like speed, accuracy, or cost and business facilitation
• How will you measure success? (e.g., FTE involved in tasks like compliance cycles, percentage reduction in manual tasks, percentage compliance deadlines met, business expansion readiness, customer support tickets, etc.)

4. Align with Leadership (CFO & CTO/CIO)

• Does leadership see tax technology as a strategic investment?
• Are Eng and Finance teams willing to integrate tax technology priorities?

5. Build a Roadmap

• Start with quick wins (e.g., data validation, automating key compliance workflows)
• Plan for long-term improvements (e.g., standardized global solution for real-time transaction reporting, business-ready and flexible tax engine, etc.)

For a deeper dive into how leading enterprises are building future-proof tax functions, watch our webinar: The Era of Real-Time Compliance: Building a Future-Proof Tax Function.

Final Thoughts: The Best Tax Tech Structures Are Intentional

Tax technology isn’t just about compliance—it’s about operational efficiency, risk management, and enabling business growth.

Some companies embed tax technology into engineering or Finance, others build a dedicated tax tech team, and some (unfortunately) leave tax tech ownership unclear. No matter the approach, the key is ownership and accountability.

Companies that treat tax technology as an afterthought often scramble to keep up with global compliance changes, face resource constraints, and struggle to execute automation projects. Those who proactively invest in tax technology gain efficiency, accuracy, and future-proof compliance.

So, if your tax technology function feels fragmented or reactive, now is the time to rethink it. Start by mapping out your needs, aligning with leadership, and choosing a model that works for your business.

💬 How does your company structure tax technology? Are you stuck in a reactive model, or have you built a strong tax tech function?