Talk:Certified Public Accountant/Archives/2016

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Certified Public Accountant/Archives/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This article's discussion of interstate practice and mobility appears to have a distinct editorial slant without adequate supporting citations. for example, the sentence "Because the electronic age makes conducting business across state borders an everyday occurrence, there is a critical need for states to adopt a uniform mobility system that will allow licensed CPAs to provide services across state lines without unnecessary burdens that do not protect the public interest." states an editorial opinion. On what basis is there a "critical need" -- and whose need? What are the "unnecessary burdens that do not protect the public interest"?? The statement "The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) have analyzed the current system for gaining practice privileges across state lines and have concluded it simply does not work." requires a citation. The passage "Compliance and enforcement of the existing system is almost impossible, with multiple, cumbersome processes and disparities in requirements and fees. Business realities, including an increase in interstate commerce and virtual technologies require a uniform system that allows fluid practice across state lines." is likewise slanted editorially. The article presents no evidence that "compliance and enforcement...is almost impossible." Nor does it provide adequate explanation or identification of the "business realities" that are impaired by the current, decentralized system of certification. I would hope that this entire section would be reworked considerably to present a less biased interpretation of the current regulatory environment and the political and policy questions surrounding the efforts by the AICPA and others to push for mobility legislation. Brs81 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 11:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have to be licensed as a CPA to legally use the CPA designation

I also removed an unsourced and, bluntly, preposterous claim that the use of the CPA designation in Kansas, Arizona and North Carolina is not restricted. All fifty states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands license individuals as CPAs. It would make no sense for a state to have a law that provides for a license for CPAs, and yet allow anyone not so licensed to use the designation. Famspear (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that nonsense had been in the article for years. Obviously, I have not been reading this article closely enough -- and neither has anyone else. Here are some excerpts from the laws in the states of Kansas, Arizona and North Carolina:

First, Kansas law:

1-316. Unlawful acts; penalty. (a) It is unlawful for any person to practice certified public accountancy unless the person holds a Kansas certificate and a valid permit to practice issued by the board pursuant to K.S.A. 1-310 and amendments thereto, or is entitled to practice pursuant to K.S.A. 1-322 and amendments thereto.

(b) It is unlawful for any firm to practice certified public accountancy as a certified public accounting firm or CPA firm unless the firm is registered with the board pursuant to K.S.A. 1-308 and amendments thereto, or meets the requirements to be exempt from such registration.

(c) It is unlawful for any person, except the holder of a valid certificate or practice privilege pursuant to K.S.A. 1-322, and amendments thereto, to use or assume the title “certified public accountant” or to use the abbreviation “CPA” or any other title, designation, words, letters, abbreviation, sign, card or device likely to be confused with “certified public accountant.” The use of the term “public accountant” without the word “certified” shall not be interpreted as implying that one is a certified public accountant [ . . .]

Next, from Arizona law:

32-747. Unlawful use of designation or abbreviation; classification

[ . . . ]

B. No individual or firm shall when referring to accounting or accounting practices assume or use the title or designation "chartered accountant", "certified accountant", "enrolled accountant", "registered accountant", "licensed accountant", "certified tax accountant", "certified tax consultant" or any other title or designation likely or intended to be confused with "certified public accountant" or "public accountant" unless the individual or firm has received from the board a certificate to practice as a certified public accountant or as a public accountant issued under the laws of this state, the individual is a limited reciprocity privilege holder under section 32-725 or the partnership, corporation or other entity is permitted to practice accounting in this state pursuant to section 32-725, subsection G [ . . .]

Now, from North Carolina law:

Sec. 93-3. Unlawful use of title “certified public accountant” by individual.

It shall be unlawful for any person who has not received a certificate of qualification or not been granted a practice privilege under GS 93-10 admitting the person to practice as a certified public accountant to assume or use such a title, or to use any words, letters, abbreviations, symbols or other means of identification to indicate that the person using same has been admitted to practice as a certified public accountant.

These laws are very typical. I'm licensed as s CPA in Texas, and Texas has a similar law. Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the Texas Occupations Code:

Sec. 901.451. USE OF TITLE OR ABBREVIATION FOR "CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT." (a) A person may not assume or use the title or designation " certified public accountant," the abbreviation "CPA," or any other title, designation, word, letter, abbreviation, sign, card, or device tending to indicate that the person is a certified public accountant unless the person holds a certificate under this chapter.

(b) A person may not provide attest services or assume or use the title "certified public accountants," the abbreviation "CPAs," or any other title, designation, word, letter, abbreviation, sign, card, or device tending to indicate that the person is a certified public accountancy firm unless:

(1) the person holds a firm license issued under this chapter or practices in this state under a privilege under Section 901.461;

(2) ownership of the person complies with the requirements of this chapter and rules adopted by the board; and

(3) the person complies with board rules authorizing the practice.

(c) The title or designation "certified public accountant" and the abbreviation "CPA" may not be used in connection with an office that is required to be under the supervision of a resident manager under Section 901. 353 unless the resident manager holds a certificate and a license issued under this chapter.

Again, these state statutes are typical, and have been on the books for years. If any bozo could legally use the designation "certified public accountant" or the abbreviation "CPA" without being licensed by the state licensing board, what would be the point of people going through all the work of obtaining a degree from an accredited college or university (and the general requirement is now 150 semester hour credits), sitting for the Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination, passing the exam, obtaining the required work experience, and obtaining the license? Famspear (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

CPA Inactive for those never awarded CPA?

The intro includes the following sentence: "Individuals who have passed the exam but have not either accomplished the required on-the-job experience or have previously met it and who have lapsed their continuing professional education or have requested to be converted to inactive status are, in many states, permitted the designation "CPA Inactive" or an equivalent phrase."

I've never heard of someone that hasn't satisfied the experience requirement, and was thus never awarded the CPA, being allowed to use the designation "CPA Inactive." Does anyone have a reference that can support this? I couldn't find one. I'm thinking the part about the experience requirement might need to be removed from the sentence.--TDJankins (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree; I changed it. Maybe I missed it, but I've never seen any support for the idea that someone who has never been a CPA could use the designation "CPA inactive." Famspear (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--TDJankins (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)