Whereas,
the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants
(NYSSCPA) supports cross-border practice mobility in accordance
with Section 23 of the model Uniform Accountancy Act of the
National Association of the State Boards of Accountancy (UAA
Section 23), which grants practice privileges to CPAs who
have their principal place of business in another state
and hold
a valid license from a state whose requirements for licensure
are deemed substantially equivalent to those outlined in
UAA Section 23.
Whereas,
adoption of UAA Section 23 in New York State would enable
CPAs licensed in a UAA Section
23 substantially equivalent
state to practice in New York State without having to meet
any additional licensing or registration requirements;
or pay a fee to, or notify New York State. New York CPAs
would
be
granted the same privileges in a state that has also adopted
UAA Section 23. CPAs whose individual qualifications meet
the UAA Section 23 standards would also be granted the
same cross-border
mobility privileges in New York State and other U.S. jurisdictions
that have adopted UAA Section 23.
Whereas,
NYSSCPA has worked for many years toward adoption of cross-border
practice mobility
in New York State for CPAs
who practice outside the state of their principal place
of business, and in accordance with UAA Section 23’s
substantial equivalency licensing requirements, including
the model legislation’s “no
notice/no fee/no escape” provisions, which would
automatically grant New York State regulators jurisdiction
and disciplinary
authority over such out-of-state CPAs.
Whereas,
in 1999, NYSSCPA supported substantial equivalency cross-border
practice mobility in the then-proposed Accountancy
Reform Legislation, and finds that the legislative statement
of support for that bill is still applicable in 2010:
The
biggest challenge facing the accounting profession today
is the establishment of uniform national standards
that will
allow CPAs to perform services outside their home State.
In
today's global and technology-driven marketplace, where
more and more companies are doing business across
state
lines and all over the world, as well as on the internet,
it is
vital that CPAs who are licensed by this State to
be able to practice
their profession beyond the State. Differing requirements
for CPA certification, reciprocity, temporary practice
and other
aspects of State accountancy legislation constitute
artificial barriers to interstate practice and mobility
of CPAs.
This is particularly true in this State, which is
the principal
place of business or headquarters for many of this
nation's largest companies.” (Excerpt from
legislative sponsor's memorandum of support, S.4402/A.8600
of 1999).
Whereas,
New York State’s 2009 Accountancy
Reform Law made significant progress towards achieving
cross-border practice
mobility for out-of-state CPAs providing non-attest
services. However, the new law does not allow out-of-state
CPAs to practice
attest and/or compilation services in New York
State similar to UAA Section 23, and instead requires a
temporary practice
permit.
Whereas,
more than 40 states have already enacted
UAA Section 23 no notice/no fee/no escape cross-border
practice privileges
for all professional services by out-of-state
CPAs based upon substantial equivalent licensing requirements
in
the CPA's
state of licensure or the individual CPA's qualifications.
Whereas,
Pennsylvania and Georgia have laws that retaliate against
New York State CPAs by applying
their UAA Section
23 cross-border practice provisions only to
CPAs from states that
have enacted laws allowing for cross-border/substantial
equivalency that includes no notice, no fee
and no escape provisions.
Whereas
other states may enact retaliatory quid pro quo provisions
similar to Pennsylvania's
and Georgia's
to
deny out-of-state
practice privileges to New York State-licensed
CPAs, unless the New York State Legislature
extends
New
York's cross-border
practice privileges to attest and compilation
services by out-of-state CPAs with no notice/no
fee/no escape
provisions, in conformity
to UAA Section 23.
Whereas,
UAA Section 23 would require any out-of-state CPA who practices
audit
and
other specified
attest engagements for an entity with a
home office
located in New York
State, to do so only through a CPA firm
registered in New York
State;
and
Whereas,
new regulations implementing New York's 2009 Accountancy
Reform Law provide
additional
consumer protections for
New Yorkers by requiring each New York-registered
CPA
firm that
provides attest and/or compilation services
to list in its triennial registration
application all CPAs
(including
all
out-of-state CPAs authorized to practice
in New
York State) who are responsible for supervising
attest
or compilation
services or signing or authorizing someone
to sign the accountants’ report
on financial statements on behalf of
the firm. The new regulations also require
these firms to affirm that the CPAs listed
meet
the competency requirements set forth
in
the New York State Board of Regents Rule
29.10(a)(13) for these services.
