As finance functions grow more complex, many organizations are discovering that existing talent structures and capabilities are not always sufficient to keep pace, particularly in specialized and technical areas. According to Randy Ellison, Managing Director of Cambridge Tax Services, the issue often begins with a fundamental miscalculation around talent.
"Organizations assume that assigning tax responsibility to capable people automatically ensures accuracy," Ellison says. "In reality, property taxation is highly specialized, and general capability does not translate into precision in this space."
According to Ellison, Cambridge Tax Services is a boutique advisory firm focused on state and local taxation, which operates within the realm of sales and use, property tax, and incentive services for enterprise clients. His perspective reflects years of identifying hidden losses within corporate tax structures, particularly in areas where complexity is underestimated. He emphasizes that the challenge is structural rather than procedural.
Large advisory firms often operate with significant overhead, layered teams, and standardized processes. While this model provides scale, Ellison observes that it can also dilute accountability and introduce inefficiencies in execution. "When multiple layers are involved, clients can end up paying for redundancy rather than results," he says. "Each layer adds cost, yet the clarity required for property tax optimization often gets lost."
Ellison positions the boutique advisory as a model built on focus and direct engagement. He says that lower overhead allows for more intentional allocation of expertise, and clients benefit from a higher level of continuity in their advisory relationships. "Efficiency is about ensuring that every action taken has a measurable impact on the client's position," he notes.
A central issue, according to Ellison, lies in how organizations perceive the property tax itself. Many treat it as a uniform obligation governed primarily at the local level, that's macro. This assumption, he says, overlooks the layered nature of tax jurisdictions, where states, cities, counties, parishes, villages, towns, and other local authorities introduce additional variables that significantly affect outcomes.
"Property tax is a network of jurisdictions, each with its own rules, interpretations, and opportunities for adjustment," Ellison says. "Without a granular understanding of these layers, companies leave money on the table."
According to him, this lack of nuance often leads to systemic errors. Assessments may go unchallenged, classifications may remain outdated, and exemptions may be underutilized. Over time, he adds, these gaps create a compounding effect that erodes financial efficiency. Ellison stresses that identifying these issues requires more than technical knowledge. It demands a mindset that prioritizes inquiry.
"The most valuable question a company can ask is whether it is even asking the right questions," he explains. "Too often, leadership assumes visibility into their tax position without interrogating the underlying assumptions."
This dynamic is closely tied to what Ellison refers to as a misconception between functionality, use, and capacity. Organizations may have systems and personnel in place that are effective on the surface. Yet capacity, defined as the depth of insight and adaptability within those systems, remains limited.
"There is a difference between managing a process and truly understanding it," Ellison says. "Functionality creates the appearance of control, while capacity determines the quality of outcomes."
He also points to an internal disconnect that frequently undermines tax strategy. In his view, senior leadership, including directors and chief financial officers, often rely on summarized data and high-level reporting. Meanwhile, engineers, plant managers, and operational staff engage directly with the detailed inputs that shape tax calculations. "The people closest to the assets often have the clearest view of their value and use," Ellison notes. "They understand the nuances that influence tax treatment, yet their insights are rarely integrated into strategic decisions."
For him, this gap reflects a combination of organizational structure and human behavior. Ellison acknowledges that ego can often play a role, particularly when decision-makers overestimate their familiarity with complex tax environments. "There is an assumption that experience equates to mastery," he says. "In a field as intricate as property taxation, that assumption can be costly. Recognizing the limits of one's knowledge is often the first step toward improvement."
When inefficiencies are eventually identified, companies often respond with urgency. Questions arise around why the issue was not addressed earlier and whether corrective measures can be implemented at a lower cost. Ellison views these reactions as a natural consequence of delayed visibility.
"By the time a problem becomes visible, it has usually been developing for years," he explains. "The focus then shifts to remediation, which is inherently more complex than proactive optimization."
For him, this is where the value of long-term advisory relationships becomes evident. Ellison emphasizes that an effective property tax strategy is built over time through consistent engagement and trust. He emphasizes that his firm's approach centers on developing deep familiarity with each client's operations and maintaining ongoing dialogue across departments. "Relationships are a critical asset in this work," he says. "They enable a level of insight and responsiveness that cannot be achieved through transactional engagements."
Ellison also highlights the importance of perspective in shaping outcomes. As a uniquely advisory firm, he notes, Cambridge Tax Services operates with a distinct approach that prioritizes creativity, resourcefulness, and precision. He believes that differentiation in structure can lead to differentiation in results. "Size does not determine capability," he says. "What matters is the ability to think critically, adapt quickly, and remain fully engaged with the client's objectives."
In a landscape where enterprise tax functions continue to grow in complexity, Ellison notes that success depends less on scale and more on specialization, less on assumption and more on inquiry. He says, "The goal is to understand the issue at a level where every decision is informed, intentional, and aligned with the realities of the business. Companies that embrace this mindset are better positioned to uncover inefficiencies and transform them into measurable value."
