Accountant (CPA/CA)

$20–30/hrrate as listed

Review and grade AI-generated accounting work — journal entries, reconciliations, financial statement treatments, and audit reasoning — against professional standards. micro1 recruits licensed CPAs and CAs for this work through an AI-led screening interview, with observed rates of $30–35/hr.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You evaluate how well a large language model handles the accounting problems a working practitioner sees every week. That means reading model outputs and judging whether they are technically correct, appropriately cited, and free of the confident-sounding errors that would fail a review. Typical tasks include:

Scoring model answers on revenue recognition, lease accounting, deferred tax, consolidation, and impairment questions under IFRS or US GAAP
Writing reference solutions and worked journal entries the model is trained against
Building test cases from realistic scenarios — a messy reconciliation, an ambiguous accrual, a related-party disclosure question
Comparing two model responses and explaining, in writing, which is better and precisely why
Flagging hallucinated standard references (a fabricated ASC or IAS paragraph is a common failure mode)

What the platform screens for

micro1 runs an AI-led interview before any human review. It probes your credential (jurisdiction, license status, firm or industry background), then pushes into technical depth with follow-up questions — expect to be asked why a treatment applies, not just which one. Screens tend to favor candidates who can reason out loud, name the standard they are relying on, and say plainly when a fact pattern is underspecified. Vague or padded answers read poorly. Written English matters, since most of the deliverable is written rationale.

Logistics

Fully remote and largely asynchronous, with work claimed from a queue rather than assigned on a fixed schedule. Most contributors treat it as part-time — commonly 10–20 hours a week — and volume fluctuates with project cycles, so it is better understood as supplemental income than a replacement for practice work. The $30–35/hr band reflects rates observed on this platform for credentialed accounting reviewers; actual offers vary by project, jurisdiction, and specialization and are not guaranteed.

What they look for

us tax law interpretation
irs regulation analysis
legal document review
structured written communication
attention to detail
analytical reasoning
digital review platforms
feedback delivery
ai-powered tax solution familiarity
technology-driven content validation

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you currently hold an active, unrestricted accounting license or credential (CPA, CA, ACCA, or equivalent) in a jurisdiction where you are authorized to practice?
Active accounting credential · required
In the past three years, have you worked professionally in a role that required you to apply accounting standards (IFRS, GAAP, or both) to real transactions, financial statements, or audits?
Current or recent accounting practice · required
Is English your first language, or do you have professional fluency in written English from your accounting work?
Written English proficiency · preferred
Do you have reliable internet access, a private workspace, and the ability to work asynchronously on your own schedule?
Reliable remote access · required

0 of 4 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Verifying that you hold a real, current license and understand the difference between active practice, inactive, and lapsed status—critical because the platform needs someone who can speak with authority to standards.
A strong answer: Name your jurisdiction (CPA, CA, ACCA, etc.), the year obtained, current status (active/inactive/retired), and if inactive, why and whether reinstatement is feasible. If you hold multiple credentials, say which ones.
Where people lose it: Claiming 'equivalent experience' instead of a credential, or being vague about whether your license is currently active—the platform cannot use you if you cannot legally attest to technical judgments.