Findings Of Fact Respondent's name was one of about three hundred on a list of public accountants certified in Florida for whom, at the close of the initial period following institution of the requirement, petitioner had no record of the taking of continuing professional education courses or of the passing of a written professional examination. As a result, petitioner mailed respondent a form letter advising him of the situation, in February of 1977. Receiving no reply, petitioner mailed a second letter to respondent on April 28, 1977, stating that he "ha[d] failed to comply with F.S. 473.111(4) and Rule 21A-15" and that his suspension had been recommended to petitioner for that reason. On May 11, 1977, respondent visited petitioner's offices in Gainesville and spoke to George Thomas McCall, at the time petitioner's coordinator for continuing professional education. Mr. McCall gave respondent three reporting forms on which respondent proceeded, without reference to any notes, to list various titles in the column styled "Name of Course or Program," filling in corresponding blanks in columns for the dates of the courses, for their sponsors and for "Credit Hours Claimed." Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. Douglas H. Thompson, Jr., petitioner's executive director, asked Jean P. Finegold, Mr. McCall's successor, to attempt to verify that respondent had taken the continuing professional education courses he had listed. Ms. Finegold wrote respondent requesting documentation. Petitioner sent this letter by certified mail, but it was returned unclaimed. Ms. Finegold also wrote each of the four institutions listed by respondent as sponsors of continuing professional education courses that he had taken. The United States Department of Labor, listed by respondent as the sponsor of 48 hours of course work he had taken in the auditing and accounting category, never replied to Ms. Finegold's inquiry. Because respondent had indicated, on the reporting form for 1974, that he took courses named "Estate Planning" and "Banking" sponsored by the Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants (FICPA), Ms. Finegold wrote FICPA asking, inter alia, for verification of respondent's attendance at those courses. Respondent listed no other courses sponsored by FICPA on any of the reporting forms. Under the supervision of FICPA's assistant Director, John Scharbaugh, Vicki Ware researched the FICPA's records without finding the course names "Banking" or "Estate Planning." Later, after an extended telephone conversation between respondent and Mr. Scharbaugh, the FICPA verified that respondent had attended "Income Taxation of Estates and Trusts" on January 10, 1974; Basic Concepts in Estate Planning" on January 11, 1974; "Workshop on Fiduciary Income Tax Returns" on December 14, 1973; "Seminar on Bank Audits, Accounting, Taxes and Regulations" (Seminar) on November 16, 1973; and another course on May 17 and 18, 1973. The three more recent courses "each qualify for eight hours of other CPE credit," composite exhibit No. 8, deposition of Jean P. Finegold, as did the seminar. The other course "Management Advisory Services Conference" is the course respondent referred to on his 1974 reporting form as "Computer Advisory," mistakenly indicating sponsorship by Florida State University rather than by the FICPA. In response to Ms. Finegold's inquiry, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) indicated that the AICPA had offered no courses entitled "Capital Investments--Long Term Debt," "Tax Reform Act of 1975" or "Tax Course," and Rex B. Cruse, Jr., director of the Continuing Professional Education Division of the AICPA, executed an affidavit to that effect. Composite exhibit No. 7, deposition of Jean P. Finegold. Respondent had indicated on his 1974 and 1976 reporting forms that he had taken courses with such names, sponsored by the AICPA. A subsequent search of the AICPA's bad debt file revealed that respondent had ordered self-study materials for courses named "Capital Structure and Long-Term Objectives," "Ins and Outs of IRS Practice and Procedures" and "Tax Reduction Act of 1975," but respondent "did not officially complete the courses by returning examinations. . .for grading." Composite exhibit No. 6, deposition of Jean P. Finegold. Otha L. Brandon, a certified public accountant in Memphis, Tennessee, first engaged respondent's services in 1975. On four or five occasions thereafter, respondent was in Memphis for orientation and instruction in auditing certain types of accounts, including assignments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Toward the end of 1976, Mr. Brandon entered into a contract with the EPA to audit construction grants to certain municipalities, including eight Florida cities. He hired respondent to perform the Florida audits. On January 3, 1977, Mr. Brendon wrote respondent directing him to go ahead with the work. At the time, Mr. Brandon contemplated completing the job in mid-February, thinking he would send additional manpower to Florida to assist respondent. Unassisted, respondent made submissions to Mr. Brandon on the last of the eight cities in July or August of 1977. Mr. Brandon allocated approximately nine thousand dollars ($9,000.00) to the Florida portion of the project. Upon receipt of respondent's work, people in Mr. Brandon's office revised the reports to make them conform to EPA regulations and directives. This was taken into account when Mr. Brandon paid respondent in excess of seven thousand two hundred dollars ($7,200.00) for his services. Respondent has been a certified public accountant in Florida since 1972.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's certificate for three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: James S. Quincey, Esquire 226 South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32602 Thomas B. Calhoun, Esquire 3656 Shamrock Way Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether petitioner abandoned her position and is deemed to have resigned from the Career Service under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact The petitioner was first employed by the State of Florida with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on May 2, 1980. At the time, the petitioner owned her own accounting firm. However because she intended to remain in State employment for a minimum of ten years and did not want to jeopardize her position with HRS, she closed out her accounting firm transferring her clients to another member of Florida State Accounting Association. On October 28, 1985, petitioner became ill with acute bronchitis. She did not return to work until November 8, 1985. During that period of time, she was on authorized leave. On Saturday, November 23, the petitioner had a relapse. After calling her doctor, petitioner resumed taking the medication that had previously been prescribed and stayed in bed. On November 25, 1985, Angela Gary, a co-worker, went by Petitioner's home to give her a ride to work. Petitioner informed Ms. Gary that she would not be going to work that day. Petitioner did not explain to Ms. Gary that she was ill and did not ask Ms. Gary to take any message to the petitioner's supervisor, Ms. Matson, or to the District Fiscal Officer, Mr. Fisher, who was in charge of the entire accounting section. 1/ Mr. Fisher was aware that Ms. Gary was to provide a ride for petitioner on November 25, 1985. Therefore when petitioner did not report to work, Mr. Fisher asked Ms. Gary if she had remembered to go by petitioner's house. Ms. Gary told Mr. Fisher that she had remembered to go by the house but that petitioner said that she wasn't going to work. On Tuesday, November 26, Ms. Gary again went by petitioner's home to drive her to work. At that time, petitioner told Ms. Gary that she wouldn't be going to work and that Ms. Gary did not have to come by her house on Wednesday unless the petitioner called her. Because petitioner did not feel capable of returning to work on Wednesday, she did not call Ms. Gary. Therefore, Ms. Gary did not go by petitioner's house on Wednesday November 27, 1985. At no time during the three day period that she was absent from work did the petitioner telephone her supervisor to inform her of the situation. Prior to this three-day period, petitioner had been absent on several occasions and had always called her supervisor to inform the supervisor that she would be unable to report to work. She was quite familiar with the procedure that she needed to follow. Petitioner had received a copy of the HRS Employee Handbook, HRSP 60-1, which includes procedures to be followed to obtain authorized leave. The procedure for sick leave includes the following: As soon as possible on the first day of absence, it is your responsibility to notify your supervisor that the absence is due to illness....Your supervisor should also be given an estimate of the length of the absence. Medical certification may be required. Further, within the accounting section, the employees had been specifically advised that they had to speak directly to their immediate supervisor when calling in sick. Although petitioner was aware of the sick leave procedure, she did not attempt to call her supervisor at any time during the three-day period she was absent. Her only reason for not calling was that the medication she was taking made her "woozy" and that she slept most of the time. There was no evidence to suggest that petitioner was incapacitated to the degree that she was unable to call her supervisor. 1O. November 27-28 were holidays. On December 2; 1985, the following Monday, petitioner called her supervisor in the morning to inform the supervisor that she would be late to work. At that time, petitioner was informed that she was no longer employed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining the action of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in deeming Virginia I. Lee to have abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1986.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the administrative complaint dated August 7, 1989; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency authorized to regulate and discipline licensees pursuant to Chapters 455 and 473, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a licensed certified public accountant, license number AC 3214 (election of rights submitted by Respondent). In connection with an investigation of another licensee (not at issue herein), the Respondent submitted to the Department a financial report that Respondent had performed for the entity identified as Moreil Interiors, Inc. (Moreil). That document (Department's exhibit 1) consisted of four pages and represented financial information related to Moreil for a 6 month period ending December 31, 1984. Certified public accounts are required to utilize specific guidelines in the performance of accounting services. Those guidelines are codified in the Statements on standards for Accounting and Review Services (SSARS). The failure to abide by the SSARS guidelines constitutes performance below acceptable accounting standards. The financial report identified in paragraph 3 failed to comply with the SSARS in at least four material ways. The level of service indicated by the Respondent's report is not accepted practice for certified public accountants and has been rejected by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The type and number of the deficiencies in that report constitute negligence on Respondent's part and establish a failure to exercise professional competence and due professional care in the performance of accounting services.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy enter a final order requiring the Respondent to complete 24 hours of continuing education regarding compliance with the SSARS guidelines, and placing the Respondent on probation with his work to be reviewed, at his expense, by a consultant or certified public accountant approved by the Board, for a period of one year following completion of the continuing education. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobi Pam Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Frank Berman P.O. Box 14156 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 Martha Willis Executive Director Board of Accountancy Suite 16 4001 Northwest 43rd Street Gainesville, Florida 32606 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue WHETHER CHARLES OTERO'S EMPLOYMENT AS A PART TIME TEACHER FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD BETWEEN 1965 AND 1972 IS CREDITABLE SERVICE UNDER THE FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM. There was some discussion at the commencement of the hearing as to whether Otero's petition for formal hearing properly raised his claim that his service is creditable both as "past" and as "prior" service. The terms "past," "prior" and "previous" service are each separate terms of art defined in Rule 225-6, Florida Administrative Code. While Otero's petition requests permission to purchase Florida Retirement System ("FRS") credit for "prior" service, his petition also frames the ultimate issue in the broader terms as expressed above. (See Petition, paragraphs 4 and 5.) The Division's unilateral Pre-hearing Statement filed on October 29, 1986, paragraph f., states: "At issue is whether or not Petitioner should be permitted to purchase the requested employment time as creditable service in the Florida Retirement System." The Division has not suggested that a more specific request for "past" credit would have resulted in any different response. The broader issue is, therefore, considered here in the interest of economy.
Findings Of Fact In 1965, Charles Otero was an inspector for the Tampa Police Department. Through a joint effort of the Police Department and the Hillsborough County School District a unique high school course curriculum was developed to assist youths who were interested in pursuing careers in law enforcement. A survey was conducted and some preliminary recruiting revealed sufficient student interest to include the course as an elective at Leto Comprehensive High School in Tampa, Florida. The curriculum was divided into two levels: Law Enforcement I and Law Enforcement II. A student enrolling in Law Enforcement I had to be in 11th grade and be free of any physical impediments to a future law enforcement career. Law Enforcement I consisted of two hours instruction a day (one hour in the classroom and one hour of physical education), five days a week. The students who successfully completed this level were expected to go on to Law Enforcement II in the 12th grade. This course was conducted one hour a day, five days a week. Students were required to complete the first level before enrolling in Law Enforcement II. (Testimony of Otero and Farmer.) Charles Otero was hired as a part-time instructor for the Hillsborough County School District in September 1965. He began teaching the new course, Law Enforcement I, at Leto Comprehensive High School, two hours a day, five days a week for the entire school year. The following year, he taught both Law Enforcement I and II, for a total of three hours a day, five days a week. Without interruption, Otero continued teaching the courses at Leto through the 1968/1969 school year. He taught the same courses at Blake High School during the 1969/1970 school year, and from August 1970 until June 1974, he taught the same courses at the Hillsborough County Evening Vocational Center. He resigned in 1974 to become Police Chief for the City of Tampa. (Testimony of Otero, Mahin, Farmer and Scaglione). For each school year from 1965 until 1974, Charles Otero was hired under an annual part-time contract for instructional staff. The three contracts placed in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits #4, #5 and #6 are typical of the forms used by Hillsborough County School District during the relevant period. Each contract specifies an hourly rate and provides that the hours of instruction are based upon the classes offered for which the teacher is qualified and assigned to teach by the county superintendent or his designee. The contract also provides for termination at will by either party upon written notice to the other. This option was not exercised during the relevant period. Otero was certified only as a part-time law enforcement teacher. (Testimony of Otero and Dobbins, Petitioner's Exhibits #4, #5 and #6). Otero's wages for teaching were paid from a Hillsborough County School District wages and salary account commonly used to pay part-time, adult education teachers. The adult education account was separate from the regular teachers' account. Otero was not paid from an OPS (other personnel services) account. (Testimony of Mann.) At the time that he was hired in 1965, both Otero and the Hillsborough County School District anticipated that the law enforcement courses would continue for at least two years, based on the survey and recruitment responses, and based on the expectation that the Level I students would go on to take the Law Enforcement II course. Since these were elective courses, the students were not required to enroll and if an insufficient number had enrolled, then Otero's courses would not have been taught. In fact, the courses continued and still continue today, with full-time teachers. (Testimony of Otero, Farmer, Scaglione and Dobbins.) Prior to December 1, 1970, full time instructional staff of the Hillsborough County School District participated in the teacher's retirement system under Chapter 238, Florida Statutes. On December 1, 1970, the FRS was created and the existing systems were closed out. Otero never participated in the teacher's retirement system, nor was he eligible for that system as a part- time teacher. In January 1972, he became a member of the FRS when the Hillsborough County School District commenced contributions on his behalf. Otero was re-employed by the Hillsborough County School Board in 1979, as Supervisor of Security and has been continually employed in that capacity on a full-time basis. He has likewise participated continually in the FRS since 1979. Otero conceded that his application to the Division indicating that he was seeking purchase of "refunded service" was in error. He had no "refunded service" under an existing system or the FRS. (Testimony of Otero and Sansom.) In June 1984, Charles Otero applied to the Division for an audit of his employment with the Hillsborough County School District to determine how much of his service would be creditable under the FRS. In July 1985, the Division responded that his employment as a part-time teacher from 1965 through 1971 is not creditable. (Testimony of Otero and Sansom, Petitioner's Exhibits #7 and #8.) The Division of Retirement is statutorily charged with administering the FRS and with determining what service may be claimed by a member as cieditable service in calculating that member's retirement benefits. Ruth Sansom has been Chief of the Division's Retirement Calculations Bureau since October 1980. She has been employed in some capacity in calculating retirement benefits for the teachers' retirement system and the FRS for 23 years. She is intimately familiar with the Division's policies. She has interpreted retirement laws and has assisted in policymaking and rulemaking for the Division. She is likewise familiar with Charles Otero's request and she testified regarding the bases for the Division's denial. The Division considered Otero's circumstances as similar to part-time adult education instructors who are paid on an hourly basis and whose students enroll on a voluntary basis. Those teachers who are hired with no contractual expectation of continuation are considered "temporary" instructional personnel and are not considered eligible for participation in the FRS. When examining a request for purchase of service, the Division applies the rules in effect at the time the request is made. The Division, however, applies those rules just as they would to an individual seeking enrollment in the FRS. The Division looks at the employment contract and legitimate expectations of the parties at the time of hire, rather than at the actual length of time the individual was employed. In other words, while the rule is applied retroactively, the employment circumstances of the individual are examined in a prospective manner. An individual is considered "temporary," even if employed for many years, so long as the employment relationship described at its commencement is merely temporary. A "part-time" teacher is not automatically "temporary." (Testimony of Sansom.) In making a determination regarding an individual's service credit the Division applies Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, Rules 225-1, 2 and 6, Florida Administrative Code, Memorandum 81-60 (Respondent's Exhibit #3) and a memorandum dated February 1, 1982 from A.J. McMullian, III. (Petitioner's Exhibit #9.)(Testimony of Sansom.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that: So long as the required contributions are made, Charles Otero's request to purchase "prior service" in the FRS for the period September 1965 to December 1970, be approved. Charles Otero's request for the period December 1970 until his enrollment in the FRS in 1972, be denied. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2487 The following constitutes my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-3. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 8. 6-10. Adopted in paragraph 6. 11. Adopted in paragraph 2. 12-13. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 2, except that the record establishes that he was hired effective September 28, 1965. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Adopted in paragraph 5. 17-28. Adopted in summary form in paragraph 2. 29-35. Rejected as irrelevant. 36-38. Adopted in paragraph 4. 39-44. Adopted in summary form in paragraph 3. 45-46. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. 47-49. Rejected as unnecessary. 50. Adopted in part in paragraph 2. The record is not clear that the Hillsborough County Evening Vocational Center was a "high school classroom." 51-56. Rejected as unnecessary. (See Conclusion of Law 7.) 57. Adopted in paragraph 2. 58-59. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. 60-63. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 7. 66-67. Adopted in paragraph 8. 68. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 69-70. Adopted in substance in paragraph 8. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-3. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted by implication in paragraphs 3 and 5. 9-13. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 5. Adopted in part in paragraph 5 (as to continual nature of the course); otherwise rejected as unsubstantiated by the record. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. 18-21. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 6. 22-23. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in "Background" portion of the recommended order. Adopted in paragraph 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Edward M. Chew, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire William A. Frieder, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 207 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Andrew J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gilda H. Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a certified public accountant licensed in the State of Pennsylvania, having been licensed in 1961. The Petitioner is seeking licensure as a certified public accountant in Florida pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.308(3)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21A-29.01(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, that is, he seeks licensure in Florida by endorsement based upon his Pennsylvania licensure without the necessity for taking the Florida examination. At the time of the Petitioner's initial licensing in the State of Pennsylvania in 1961 he met Florida's requirements in the areas of education and experience. The Petitioner currently holds a valid license in Pennsylvania and is licensed in other states. The Board of Accountancy reviewed the Petitioner's application and determined that he met the Florida requirements for education and experience and that he was administered the same examination in Pennsylvania in 1961 that was administered in Florida in 1961, the uniform certified public accountancy examination administered by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The Board determined, however, in its non-final order, that the Petitioner did not receive grades on that examination administered in Pennsylvania that would have constituted passing grades in Florida and denied his application. The rules of the Board require that an applicant for licensure as a certified public accountant receive a grade of 75 or above on all parts of an examination administered by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. See Rule 2IA-28.05(2)(3), Florida Administrative Code. The rules in effect in 1961 also required that a grade of 75 or above be received on all four subjects of the examination in order to achieve licensure in Florida. See Rules of the State Board of Accountancy Relative to Examinations and the Issuance and Revocation of Certificates, Rule 1(f). See also Section 473.10, Florida Statutes (1961). The requirement that applicants for licensure by endorsement receive grades on all four areas of the AICPA Exam of 75 or better has been enforced in Florida since the 1930's and has been a requirement embodied in the rules of the Board since 1949. In February, 1961, the Pennsylvania Board of Accountancy, pursuant to a resolution enacted for insular reasons of its own, determined to accept as passing the Petitioner's and other candidates' scores in the Law and Practice portions of the AICPA licensure examination, even though those grades were below the score of 75. The Board thus deemed that the Petitioner passed the examination for purposes of licensure in Pennsylvania with a score of "75" by fiat, even though in fact the Petitioner did not receive an actual score of 75 in those two subject areas as determined by the AICPA which administered and graded the examination. The acceptance of the lower grade on the part of the Pennsylvania Board was not done pursuant to a regrading of the Petitioner's exam in an attempt to correct mistakes or errors in the AICPA's finding regarding his score, but was rather simply due to an arbitrary determination by the Pennsylvania Board that for the Petitioner and certain other Pennsylvania applicants the lower grade in that particular instance would be considered as passing. The Petitioner had no knowledge that the Pennsylvania Board had taken this action in arbitrarily upgrading his scores on two portions of the exam so that he passed the entire exam until he began his application process with the Florida State Board of Accountancy in September, 1980. During its investigation of the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement, the Florida Board of Accountancy ascertained that the Petitioner had in fact received grades of 65 in the Law and Practice pertions of the Uniform AICPA Examination which were then subsequently arbitrarily raised by resolution of the Pennsylvania Board. The Florida Beard has at no time accepted as passing grades for a licensure examination those grades by applicants of less than 75 on the AICPA examination. It is true that prior to the Florida Board's becoming aware, in 1973, of the fact that Pennsylvania had arbitrarily raised some grades of its applicants, it did in fact accept some similarly situated candidates for licensure by endorsement in Florida. After becoming aware at that time of this arbitrary grade-raising process, the Board has consistently refused licensure to applicants from other states who actually received less than 75 on the AICPA Examination as determined by the AICPA. For considerations of equity and fairness the Board did, however, allow candidates who had already been licensed in Florida by endorsement prior to the Board's becoming aware of this anomaly to retain their licenses. Since the Petitioner failed to meet the AICPA examination requirement of a grade of 75 or better on all portions of the examination which was set forth and adopted in the Florida rules and statutes in effect at the time of his licensure in Pennsylvania in 1961, his request for licensure by endorsement was denied by the Board's non-final order on December 8, 1980.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED that the denial of the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement by the Board of Accountancy of the State of Florida be upheld and that the petition be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not existing Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. See, Sections 120.52(8) and 120.56 F.S.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Silvia S. Ibanez is a practicing attorney and a member of the Florida Bar, and holds active Florida CPA License No. 10842, currently in good standing. She is also a Registered Investment Advisor with the Florida Division of Securities and a certified financial planner (CFP). She has been charged with violating Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. in DOAH Case No. 91-4100 which is currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. As a licensee with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, Petitioner is required to, and does, disclose the fact that she is a CPA. Petitioner Ibanez is listed in the yellow pages under the heading "Attorneys" as "Ibanez, Silvia, S., CPA, CFP." On its face, there is nothing false or fraudulent about this listing. As an attorney, Petitioner also places CPA after her name on her business cards and on her letterhead. Respondent contends that because Petitioner "holds out" to the public as a CPA, uses accounting skills, and provides one or more types of management, advisory, or consulting services, she is currently "practicing public accounting." Intervenor James R. Brewster is also a practicing attorney, a Board- certified tax lawyer, and a member of the Florida Bar, and holds an active Florida CPA license. Mr. Brewster has been charged with violating Rule 21A- 20.012 F.A.C. in DOAH Case No. 90-3278 which is currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The administrative complaint therein charges violations of Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. and Sections 473.323(1)(a), (g), and (h) F.S. on the basis that Brewster's law firm letterhead designates him as a "CPA" and the law firm is not licensed by the Board of Accountancy as a public accounting firm. Intervenor American Association of Attorney Public Accountants (AAA- CPA) is a not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Mission Viejo, California. Founded in 1964, the AAA-CPA is an active professional organization of persons dually qualified as both attorneys and CPAs. Its membership is comprised of practitioners in public accounting, law, government, education, and other activities. One of the functions of the AAA- CPA is to engage in the analysis and discussion of ethical and other issues related to practitioners who are dually licensed in the accounting and law professions. This includes monitoring and commenting upon legislation affecting the practice of law and public accountancy and participating in the development of ethical standards of lawyers and CPAs. AAA-CPA's substantial interests are affected by this proceeding in that its members are CPAs who are directly affected by the definition, scope, and regulation of the practice of public accounting by Florida statutes and rules. Respondent Board of Accountancy is an agency of the State of Florida established pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 473 F.S. Pursuant to Section 473.301 F.S., the Board is authorized in the following language to regulate the "practice of public accounting": Purpose.--The Legislature recognizes that there is a public need for independent and objective public accountants and that it is necessary to regulate the practice of public accounting to assure the minimum competence of practitioners and the accuracy of audit statements upon which the public relies and to protect the public from dishonest practitioners and, therefore, deems it necessary in the interest of public welfare to regulate the practice of public accountancy in this state. Respondent Department of Professional Regulation is an umbrella agency for the Board of Accountancy, established under the provisions of Section 20.16 and Chapter 455 F.S. Intervenor Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants (FICPA) is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Tallahassee. Founded in 1905, the FICPA is an active professional organization with approximately 17,800 members. Its membership is comprised of practitioners in public accounting, industry, government, education, law, and other activities. One of the functions of the FICPA is to engage in the analysis and discussion of issues related to the accounting profession. This includes monitoring the scope of services provided by certified public accountants in Florida and throughout the United States, monitoring legislation affecting the practice of public accountancy, and participating in the development of auditing, accounting, and ethical standards of CPAs. Intervenor FICPA's substantial interests are affected by this proceeding in that its members are CPAs who are directly affected by the definition, scope, and regulation of the practice of public accounting by Florida statutes and rules. It is even recognized in the statute. See, Section 473.302 F.S., infra. Challenged existing Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C., also referred to as the "holding out" rule, provides as follows: 21A-20.012 Holding Out. "Holding himself or itself out" as used in Section 473.302(4), F.S. is defined as publicizing that the licensee is a certified public accountant when providing, or offering to provide services or products to the public, in such a manner that an uninformed person may not be able to differentiate whether or not the licensee may also be in the practice of public accounting. The display of the CPA certificate and license issued by the Department of Professional Regulation shall not constitute holding out under the terms of this rule. All other publication of the fact that a licensee is a CPA constitutes holding oneself out. The specific statutory authorities currently cited by the agency for the rule are Sections 473.302, 473.304 and 473.307 F.S. and the law implemented is cited as Section 473.302 F.S. Section 473.307, dealing with "experience," does not impinge on these proceedings. The remaining authorities provide as follows: Definitions.--As used in this act: "Board" means the Board of Accountancy. "Department" means the Department of Professional Regulation. "Certified public accountant" means a person who holds a license to practice public accounting in this state under the authority of this act. "Practice of," "practicing public accountancy," or "public accounting" means: Offering to perform or performing for the public one or more types of services involving the use of accounting skills or one or more types of management advisory consulting services, by a certified public accountant or firm of certified public accountants, of this state, including the performance of such services in the employ of another person; or Offering to perform or performing for the public one or more types of services involving the use of accounting skills or one or more types of management advisory or consulting services, by any other person holding himself or itself out as a certified public accountant or firm of certified public accountants, including the performance of such services by a certified public accountant in the employ of a person so holding himself or itself out. However, these terms shall not include services provided by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants, or any full service association of certified public accounting firms whose plans of administration have been approved by the board, to their members or services performed by these entities in reviewing the services provided to the public by members of these entities. [Emphasis supplied] 473.304 Rules of board.--The board shall adopt all rules necessary to administer this act. Every licensee shall be governed and controlled by this act and the rules adopted by the Board. Also relevant to these proceedings is Section 473.322 F.S. which provides as follows: 473.322 Prohibitions; penalties.-- No person shall knowingly: Practice public accounting unless the person is a certified public accountant or a public accountant; Assume or use the titles or designations "certified public accountant" or "public accountant" or the abbreviations "C.P.A." or any other title, designation, words, letters, abbreviations, sign, card, or device tending to indicate that such person holds an active license under this act, unless such person holds an active license under this act; Attest as an expert in accountancy to the reliability or fairness of presentation of financial information or utilize any form of disclaimer of opinion which is intended or conventionally understood to convey an assurance of reliability as to matters not specifically disclaimed unless such person holds an active license under this act. This subsection shall not prevent the performance by persons other than certified public accountants of other services involving the use of accounting skills including the preparation of tax returns and the preparation of financial statements without expression of opinion thereon. Present as his own the license of another; Give false or forged evidence to the board or a member thereof for the purpose of obtaining a license; Use or attempt to use a public accounting license which has been suspended, revoked, or placed on inactive status; Employ unlicensed persons to practice public accounting; or Conceal information relative to violations of this act. Any person who violates any provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. [Emphasis supplied] Although it has not been challenged, Rule 21A-21.009 F.A.C., the "other business activity rule," is relevant to these proceedings. That existing rule currently provides as follows: 21A-21.009 Other Business Activities. A licensee engaged in the practice of public accounting may concurrently engage in another business, occupation, or profession if: The licensee does not hold himself out as a certified public accountant in that activity, The activity is conducted under a name which the public will not associate with licensee's practice of public accounting, The other business, occupation, or profession is not used to promote the practice of public accounting in any manner prohibited by Chapter 473, F.S., Facilities used by the licensee in his public accounting practice and other activity conform to the requirements of 21A-26.001(3), The entity's dealings with the licensee's public accounting clients shall not violate the provisions of Chapter 473, F.S., and 21A, Florida Administrative Code, relating to integrity and objectivity, The entity does not interpret financial statements, forecasts or projections audited, reviewed, compiled or prepared by others. [Emphasis supplied] Although it has not been challenged, Rule 21A-20.011 F.A.C. is relevant to these proceedings. That existing rule currently provides as follows: 21A-20.011 Practice of, or Practicing Public Accountancy. "Practice of, or practicing public accountancy" as defined by Section 473.302(4), F.S., shall exclude any of the following: Services rendered by a licensee as an employee of a governmental unit or an employee rendering accounting services only to his employer as long as that employer is not required to be licensed under F.S. 473, or Activities of licensees who do not hold themselves out as CPAs and who are not associated with financial statements, or Activities of licensees who do not hold themselves out as certified public accountants. [Emphasis supplied] Petitioner's and Intervenor Brewster's CPA certificates (like all Florida CPA certificates) authorize them to display their CPA credentials. The CPA certificate represents that the recipient . . . has passed all examinations and has met all other requirements prescribed by law and by rule of this board for certification as an expert public accountant, and is therefore entitled to append the letters CPA after this registrant's name to evidence registration by this board as a Certified Public Accountant. [Emphasis supplied] The Board's only classifications of CPA licenses/licensees are "active" or "inactive." "Active" and "inactive" refer to the status of the CPA license and do not refer to or imply that the licensee is actively practicing public accounting. One can be an actively licensed CPA and not be practicing public accounting. Attainment of the CPA credential is an accomplishment that is recognized in the business community. The CPA credential of a Florida-licensed CPA connotes high competency and achievement levels in the discipline of accounting. Truthful communication of the CPA credential by actively licensed CPAs for identification purposes constitutes valuable disclosure to the public. The use of the term "CPA" implies a specific competency to the public. The fact that Petitioner Ibanez or Intervenor Brewster is a CPA is valuable to their respective legal clients. CPA status is a valuable property right to each CPA, and the ability of a practicing attorney to publicize the fact that s/he also holds an active CPA license is a valuable asset to that individual. It is conceded by all parties that it is possible to practice law and public accounting in the same business activity. There are firms that simultaneously hold themselves out as law firms and public accounting firms. The activities of other regulated professionals, such as members of the Florida Bar, which overlap those of practicing CPAs are subject to the regulatory standards of their principal regulated professions and applicable judicial and administrative remedies for malpractice and negligence. It is conceded by all parties that many activities conducted by professionals and nonprofessionals, other than by CPAs and other than by attorneys, are identical to activities performed by CPAs engaged in public accounting. For instance, anyone can legally prepare a tax return. Bookkeepers and free-lance tax assistors of all sorts are unregulated in any way. The only activity among public accounting activities that is a unique activity of CPAs is the "attest" function. See, Section 473.322(1)(c) F.S. Truthful use, communication, or disclosure of the CPA credential by an actively licensed CPA does not per se constitute false, misleading, or deceptive advertising. The evidence does not support a finding that withholding truthful disclosure that one has earned the CPA credential benefits the public welfare or effects the purposes of the enabling legislation, or indeed, how such nondisclosure could promote them, particularly since it has been shown that persons of considerably lesser competency and achievement levels in the discipline of accounting may legally offer to the public almost all the services provided by CPAs. Prior to 1984, when the "holding out" rule was adopted, a Florida- licensed CPA who offered one or more types of accounting services to the public or who offered one or more types of management advisory or consulting services to the public was considered to be "practicing public accountancy," whether or not that person appended the initials "CPA" after his or her name. The "holding out" rule became effective on September 17, 1984. Chapter 89-87 Laws of Florida amended Section 473.302(4) F.S. (i.e., the definition of public accountancy) but the amendment did not change the previously existing "holding out" language therein. The "holding out" rule was adopted more than one year before the initiation of this rule challenge. There is no dispute among the parties that the definition within the challenged Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. is circular. In attempting to define the term "holding out" so that the use of that term in Section 473.302(4) F.S. may be clarified, the rule incorporates the statutory phrase "practice of public accounting," and the term "practice of public accountancy/accounting" in Section 473.302(4)(b) F.S. incorporates the term "holding out," 1/ as does Rule 21A- F.A.C., 2/ which creates exemptions to the statute. At least one purpose of the second sentence of the existing rule seems to have been to allow all CPAs to display their CPA certificates on their inner office walls without fear of disciplinary action by the Board. The Board's expressed rationale for excluding "display of a CPA certificate" from its "holding out" rule is premised on the fact that during an office visit, a CPA can immediately disabuse any individual of the fact that s/he is practicing public accounting once that individual is inside the CPA's office. However, Petitioner demonstrated, and the Board conceded, that an individual may have the opportunity to disabuse members of the public that s/he is engaged in the activity of the practice of public accounting or that s/he is offering all the services normally associated with a CPA, as opposed to law or some other profession, at least where there is direct contact by letter or telephone. Clearly, there are many ways a nonattesting, actively licensed CPA who is dually licensed can clarify to those seeking his or her services which profession, function, or service s/he is willing to perform for that client. On the other hand, the challenged rule does not deal with all members of the public, or members of the public specifically seeking CPA services, or members of the public seeking some other service. The rule deals with "uninformed persons." As used in the rule, the term "uninformed person" is undefined and has been subject to differing speculative interpretations by the Board and by non-Board witnesses, some of which interpretations address such broad categories as anyone using a telephone book. The Board also suggested that only display of the original CPA certificate on an inside office wall would be exempt from prosecution for publication, but a reasonable person could interpret the rule on its face to permit posting the CPA certificate or an exact facsimile of the certificate on a sign outside an office building or circulating as business cards exact reduced- size copies of the certificate even though these types of "publication" or "display" would not provide the same opportunity as an office visit would provide for the CPA to disclose to individuals the actual services the CPA was offering to perform. Accordingly, there has been no rational basis for the "holding out" rule's distinction between "display" of the licensee's CPA certificate and other forms of truthful, nonmisleading publication of the CPA licensure/status. The agency's expressed rationale behind its adoption of the "holding out" rule was to define the meaning of the statutory term "holding out," as used in Section 473.302(4) F.S., a term which has also been adopted into a number of other rules (see, supra), so as to provide guidance on when a person who has been licensed as a CPA is engaged in the "practice of public accounting." Specifically, the Board maintained that the "holding out rule" and the "other business activity rule" give licensees two options. Under the first option, the "holding out" rule permits licensees to retain their CPA certificates when not in compliance with all of the provisions of Chapter 473 F.S. and the rules promulgated thereunder, as long as they do not publicize themselves as CPAs. Alternatively, the Board perceives that under the second option, if licensees do publicize themselves as CPAs when performing services for the public, licensees become subject to regulation by the Board and are held to the standards of competency and conduct which are applicable to all CPAs who use their accounting skills for the public while trading on the fact of their licensure as a Florida CPA. However, the words "publicizing" and "publication" as used in the "holding out" rule are also undefined. Although Respondents submitted that the "common usage" of these words is sufficient to embrace listings in the yellow pages, it is also quite possible to give these words a far broader reading to encompass the "assumption" and "use" of the designation "CPA" and the "assumption" and "use" of the CPA credential, which "assumption" and "use" are specifically reserved to all actively licensed CPAs and which designation is permitted to be inserted after their names on signs, cards, or devices by Section 473.322(1)(b) F.S. [see Finding of Fact No. 11] and by the CPA certificate itself which permits them to "append" CPA after their names [see Finding of Fact No. 14]. The rule has actually subjected CPAs, and specifically has subjected Petitioner and Intervenor Brewster, to DPR disciplinary proceedings independent of any other act or wrongdoing merely for any "publication" of the CPA credential in a form other than display of the original CPA certificate on an inner office wall. The rule may automatically subject attorney-CPA licensees to DPR disciplinary proceedings independent of any other act or wrongdoing merely on the basis of passive, truthful communications which are otherwise in full compliance with the standards of the Florida Supreme Court and Florida Bar. The rule has the potential for being interpreted so as to prohibit CPAs such as Petitioner and Intervenor Brewster from making disclosures of their earned status as CPAs to various regulatory bodies to which they are required by law to disclose that information. See, Findings of Fact 1 and 2, supra. The rule can be invoked to limit their income by chilling their appearances as expert CPA witnesses for a fee even if they never work for an uninformed layman at all. Applicants for certain state employments and candidates for public office may run afoul of the rule due to the disclosure requirements of public office. Even at risk is the CPA called as a factual witness who is then sworn to tell the truth and asked innocuous biographical information. One's desire to attain a CPA credential may be chilled by the hazard of using it. Chapter 473 F.S. contains limitations on competitive negotiation, prohibits accepting contingent fees, prohibits the payment of certain commissions, and establishes other prohibitions to which persons who are deemed to be "practicing public accountancy" must adhere. Some of these prohibitions are contrary to normal, ethical practice of other professions, i.e., acceptance of contingent fees by lawyers. If the rule remains intact, the Board and DPR under Chapters 473 and 455 F.S. have the potential of breaching the confidentiality of CPA-attorneys' legal clients' files. See, Section 473.316(5) and 473.318 F.S. Since attorneys are exclusively overseen by the Florida Supreme Court, the rule potentially violates the doctrine of "separation of powers" among the three branches of state government. Therefore, the definitional rule creates a wedge whereby the Board may insinuate its discipline into other professions and confuses dually licensed CPAs from knowing how they may behave in each profession without running afoul of discipline in the other. In application with other rules, the "holding out" rule sets confusing and varying standards for agency decisions involving attorneys, bankers, CPAs employed by private corporate employers, and CPAs with their own financial consultant firms. The Board of Accountancy has issued a series of letter opinions based on the "holding out rule" or based on that rule read in conjunction with Rule 21A-21.009 F.A.C., the "other business activity rule," which indicate that a Florida CPA who does not "hold out" to the public as a CPA and who is not associated with financial statements is permitted by the Board to engage in other business activities without complying with the provisions of Chapter 473 F.S., that is, not being subject to DPR discipline, because the Board does not view that CPA in those activities as "practicing public accountancy." Also, the Board of Accountancy has issued a series of opinions to the effect that, by virtue of Section 473.302(4) F.S. and the "holding out rule," a CPA who "holds out" (publicizes his or her status as a CPA) is automatically, by definition, "practicing public accounting," regardless of what actual business activity s/he is performing. These opinions also indirectly insinuate the Board of Accountancy into many other professions, including the practice of law, which the Board has no statutory mandate to regulate pursuant to Section 473.301 F.S. The plethora of opinions issued by the Board dramatize the confusion experienced by CPAs who have sought to have the Board interpret the rule in question on a case-by-case basis. Testimony of the Chairman of the Board was offered to establish that absent the challenged rule, the Board cannot reasonably regulate negligence in the profession and that absent the rule, only fraud could be prosecuted by the Board. He testified that, in his opinion, the challenged rule means that a CPA performing tax services for a client is not doing "public accounting" if "CPA" is not appended after the CPA's name in advertising and that that CPA cannot be disciplined by the Board for negligence, any more than he could be disciplined if he were a non-CPA doing tax services. The Chairman further opined that a CPA doing tax services is doing public accounting only if he appends CPA after his name, and in that instance, the Board can and will discipline that CPA for negligence, should he commit any. Further, the Chairman indicated that if Rules 21A-21.009, 21A-20.011, and 21A-20.012 F.A.C. were not simultaneously in place, the actively licensed CPA who places CPA after his name could not be disciplined by the Board for negligence, but only for fraud. Precisely how this would occur was not made clear, but upon the foregoing, together with the Board opinions admitted in evidence, it is concluded that the Board has utilized what purports to be purely a definitional rule to establish disciplinary jurisdiction and that in certain instances the rule puts DPR in the precarious position of only being able to prosecute CPAs with "CPA" appended after their names, but not CPAs who perform the same services and who do not append "CPA" after their names. Such a result is nonsensical. The Board does not seriously suggest that if Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. is invalidated, Rule 21A-20.011 would provide a blanket exclusion from all provisions of Chapter 473 F.S. for CPAs "using" or "assuming" or "publicizing" their status. At a minimum, such CPAs would have to maintain their credential as would any other CPA for good character, payment of fees, and recertification for competency based on continuing education. What has actually occurred here is that the Board has consciously utilized Rules 21A-20.011 and 21A-20.012 F.A.C. so as to not enforce Section 473.302(4)(a) as written and so as to selectively enforce only Section 473.302(4)(b) F.S. Then, by its selective enforcement of Rule 21A-20.012, the Board has gone a step further. The Board has "interpreted" Section 473.302(4)(b) to include within Board jurisdiction not those functions, activities, or skills a CPA practices or holds out to the public for a fee as constituting "practicing public accountancy" but has made the definition of "practicing public accountancy" encompass any disclosure of CPA status or skill attainment, regardless of the disclosure's truth and regardless of whether or not the CPA is utilizing any of the functions, activities, or skills of a CPA. By so doing, the Board has exceeded its statutory mandate and legislative purpose as set forth in Section 473.301 F.S. On its face, Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. consists of three sentences, which, in relationship to each other, are inconsistent and contradictory. Specifically, sentence ONE seems to be based on the overall representation made by a CPA to "uninformed persons." It simultaneously presumes fraud in the communication of what otherwise would be truthful, passive information. 3/ Sentence THREE subjects the CPA to discipline absent any fraud and totally without consideration to the impression formed by "uninformed persons" from the use of the CPA designation in any manner other than display of the certificate. 4/ Because there are two incompatible definitions in the challenged rule as now drafted, the Board is at liberty to selectively enforce the statute. One CPA could be prosecuted for simple disclosure of credential status or neutral biographical information (Ibanez). Another CPA might be prosecuted only after examination of the totality of his circumstances to determine if the circumstances mislead "uninformed persons" into believing he abides by all the regulations promulgated under Chapter 473 F.S., and still another CPA would never be prosecuted unless he performs the attest function. This is nonsensical and clearly unfair.
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice as a certified public accountant in the state of Florida based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 473, Florida Statutes, set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaints filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was licensed to practice as a certified public accountant ("CPA") in the state of Florida, having been issued license number AC0001638. Respondent's most recent business address was 224 North Federal Highway, Suite #4, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. Petitioner has presented evidence of a number of Final Orders entered by the Florida Board of Accountancy (the "Board") against Respondent as a result of prior disciplinary action initiated by Petitioner. While the records presented are somewhat confusing and bear several different case numbers, it appears that, as a result of the various cases, Respondent has been on probation for approximately the last 12 years. According to the records presented, the first action taken against Respondent's license is reflected in a Final Order dated December 31, 1981 and filed on February 8, 1982 in DPR Case Number 0000499. That Final Order indicates that a stipulation executed by Respondent "as to facts, law and discipline" was accepted by the Board "with no changes." The stipulation referenced in that Final Order was not included with the exhibits entered into evidence in this proceeding. Thus, the "facts, law and discipline" are not of record in this case. Next, the Board entered a Final Order dated May 11, 1982 and filed on May 17, 1982 in DPR Case Numbers 16369, 16370 and 15399 imposing a $1,000 fine against Respondent and suspending his license for eighteen (18) months. An Amended Final Order dated September 3, 1982 was filed in DPR Case Numbers 16369, 16370 and 15399 on September 15, 1982. That Amended Final Order accepted a signed stipulation dated July 30, 1982 and modified the Final Order entered on May 11, 1982. In lieu of the fine and suspension imposed in the May 11 Final Order, the Amended Final Order placed Respondent on probation for five years with a requirement for a review of Respondent's practice at the end of each year by a CPA selected by the Department at Respondent's expense. The independent certified public accountant was supposed to submit written and oral reports to the Board and the Department regarding Respondent's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules governing the accounting profession. The Stipulation which was incorporated into the Amended Final Order specifically required Respondent to comply "with all provisions of Chapter 455 and 473, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto." The Stipulation provided in part as follows: The Board shall determine at a public hearing whether [Respondent] has complied with Chapters 455 and 473, F.S. and the rules promulgated thereto. The Board may restrict or prohibit [Respondent's] practice of public accountancy during his period of probation as it deems necessary to protect the public safety and welfare. It is clearly understood and agreed that, in the event the DEPARTMENT, the BOARD or the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel find sufficient evidence to believe reasonable cause exists that [Respondent] has violated any of the conditions of probation as outlined above, a notice of said violation shall be sent to [Respondent], by certified mail, setting forth the nature of the alleged violation and an emergency hearing will be held by the BOARD or the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel, and upon a find [sic] of probable cause, [Respondent's] probation may be vacated and his license to practice accountancy in the State of Florida, subject to automatic suspension, with further disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to Chapters 455 and 473, F.S. If Respondent has not complied with all the terms and conditions of this joint stipulation and final order of the BOARD, the BOARD shall enter an Order imposing such further terms and conditions of probation pursuant to the statutory powers set forth in 473.323(1)(3), F.S., and shall further cause said matter to be referred to the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel or such other jurisdictional authority as may be established for purposes of determining probable cause and initiating further administrative and/or judicial action against the Respondent. * * * [Respondent] expressly waives all further procedural steps and expressly waives all rights to seek judicial review of, or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of a joint stipulation of facts, conclusions of law and imposition of discipline, and the final order of the BOARD incorporating said stipulation. At a meeting on January 21, 1985, the Florida Board of Accountancy reviewed a report from the consultant hired to conduct the inspection and review of Respondent's public accountancy practice in accordance with the terms of the Amended Final Order entered on September 15, 1982. Based upon its review of the consultant's report, the Board imposed an additional condition of probation that all audits, reviews and compilations prepared by Respondent were to be reviewed prior to their issuance by a CPA selected by Respondent at Respondent's expense. This additional aspect of Respondent's probation was incorporated in a Final Order dated February 15, 1985 and entered on February 28, 1985 in DPR Case Number 0016369. In an Administrative Complaint dated December 4, 1985, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating the terms of his probation by issuing compilations without prior review by another CPA. This Administrative Complaint was assigned DPR Case Number 0063064. As reflected in a Final Order dated February 23, 1987 and filed on March 10, 1987 in DPR Case Number 0063064, Respondent's probation was extended until September 1988 based upon a signed Stipulation dated November 16, 1986 which was accepted by the Board during its meeting on January 30, 1987. As a result of the March 10, 1987 Final Order extending Respondent's probation, Respondent was required to continue to obtain review and approval by an independent CPA prior to issuance of any audited financial statements, reviewed financial statements and compiled financial statements and related accountant's reports. In an Administrative Complaint dated December 7, 1989 in DPR Case Number 0063064, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating Section 473.323(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as a result of his issuance of financial statements without prior review by a CPA as required by the previous Final Orders entered against Respondent. The Complaint did not specify any date(s) or specific financial statements involved. At a meeting on February 22, 1990, the Board accepted a Counter- Settlement Stipulation signed by Respondent on March 26, 1990 in Case Number 0063064. The Board entered a Final Order dated April 4, 1990 and filed on April 10, 1990 confirming its acceptance of the Counter-Stipulation. 2/ The Counter- Settlement Stipulation incorporated in the April 1990 Final Order extended Respondent's probation "until the terms of probation have been met." The terms of probation were stated to be: That the Respondent shall not violate the provisions of Chapters 455 or 473, Florida Statutes or the rules promulgated pursuant thereto or the terms and conditions of this joint stipulation. A Department of Professional Regulation Certified Public Accountant consultant shall interview the Respondent's clients to determine the type of work product they are receiving from the Respondent. A Department of Professional Regulation Certified Public Accountant Consultant shall conduct a review of the Respondent's tax practice along with work papers at the Respondent's expense. The Counter-Stipulation further provided that: Respondent and the Department fully understand that this Stipulation, and the subsequent Final Order incorporating same, will not in any way preclude additional proceedings by the Board and/or Department against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically detailed in the investigative findings of the Department upon which a finding of probable cause was made. Respondent and the Department expressly waive all further procedural steps, and expressively waives [sic] all rights to seek judicial review of or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of the joint stipulation and the Final Order of the Board, if said stipulation is accepted by the Board and incorporated in the Final Order.... In early 1991, Marlyn Felsing, a CPA retained as a consultant to conduct a review of Respondent's work pursuant to the terms of his probation, met with Respondent and reviewed financial statements, work papers and various tax returns prepared by Respondent for his clients. Felsing reviewed the financial statements and/or business tax returns for approximately four of Respondent's business clients and reviewed the personal income tax returns for approximately three of Respondent's clients who were business owners. He also reviewed all of the related work papers and discussed his review with Respondent. Felsing prepared a report dated April 23, 1991 detailing several problems and deficiencies he found during his review. A copy of Felsing's report was offered into evidence in this case and he testified at the hearing regarding many of those findings. This evidence was offered in support of the charges in the First DOAH Complaint (DOAH Case Number 92-3421) as amended. Neither Felsing's report nor any of his findings are specifically alleged in the First DOAH Complaint. That Complaint referenced a probation report which "revealed deficiencies which were brought before the Probable Cause Panel, and it was determined that Respondent had violated the terms of the Final Order." As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the First DOAH Complaint was filed on January 23, 1992. As reflected in a Final Order dated June 19, 1991, and filed on July 1, 1991 in DPR Case Number 0063064, the Board reviewed a probation report during its meeting on May 21, 1991 and approved a settlement stipulation extending the probation imposed by the April 4, 1990 Final Order for a period of one (1) year. The settlement stipulation referenced in this July 1, 1991 Order has not been offered into evidence in this proceeding. As best can be determined from the evidence presented in this case, the Final Order entered in DPR Case Number 0063064 on July 1, 1991, was entered after review of the probation report prepared by Marlyn Felsing on April 23, 1991. Thus, it appears that the Board has already taken final action with respect to the deficiencies found in Felsing's report. During the Board Meeting on May 21, 1991, the Board also considered whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent with respect to another Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent on January 7, 1991. That new Administrative Complaint was assigned DPR Case Number 95979 and contained allegations that Respondent "was associated with personal financial statements for Michael Raybeck which did not meet the appropriate standards." As reflected in a Final Order dated June 19, 1991 and filed on July 1, 1991 in DPR Case Number 95979, the Board during its May 21, 1991 meeting accepted a settlement stipulation signed by Respondent on April 15, 1991. In that settlement stipulation, Respondent admitted the allegations in the Administrative Complaint in DPR Case Number 95979. The Settlement Stipulation provided as follows: * * * Stipulated Disposition 2. Respondent's license to practice public accounting is currently on probation in case number 63064. Probation in this case shall run concurrently with the probation in case number 63064. The same CPA consultant who is assigned to review the Respondent's practice in Case Number 63064 shall also review the personal financial statements the Respondent's office prepares. The consultant shall also review the Respondent's records to determine whether he is accepting commissions. These additional terms shall also be paid for by the Respondent. * * * 5. Respondent and the Department fully under- stand that this Stipulation, and the subsequent Final Order incorporating same, will not in any way preclude additional proceedings by the Board and/or Department against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically detained [sic] in the investigative findings of the Department upon which a finding of probable cause was made. * * * 8. This Settlement Stipulation is [sic] an admission of any liability on behalf of the Respondent and is being entered into merely to resolve a dispute. It shall not be admissible in any court of law or any subsequent adminis- trative proceeding for any purpose. As reflected in an Order dated September 29, 1992 and filed on September 30, 1992 in DPR Case Number 90-95979, the Board reviewed a probation report during its September 24, 1992 meeting and determined "that the probation imposed upon Respondent by the Final Order dated July 1, 1991, shall be extended and/or modified as follows: extend probation and defer action until Case Number 90-13254 is resolved." Case Number 90-13254 is the Second DOAH Complaint, which was filed on July 6, 1992 (DOAH Case Number 92-5696). The Second DOAH Complaint includes specific allegations against Respondent based upon his purported preparation of misleading financial statements for American British Enterprises, Inc. and Federal Restaurants, Inc. The Second DOAH Complaint The evidence presented in this case established that Respondent provided a number of accounting services to American British Enterprises, Inc. and Federal Restaurants, Inc. The exact nature and scope of the services provided by Respondent are not entirely clear. Respondent's records of his engagement include a balance sheet of Federal Restaurants as of August 17, 1987; Consolidated Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc. as of August 25, 1987; Interim Compiled Financial Statements, American British Enterprises, March 31, 1988; Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc. November 30, 1988; and Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc., December 31, 1988. The Second DOAH Complaint, as amended, alleges that the financial statements referenced in paragraph 19 above were included in due diligence packages for American British Enterprises and were distributed to broker- dealers. No persuasive evidence was presented regarding any such distribution. The Second DOAH Complaint also alleges that "Respondent distributed misleading financial statements to brokers with the purpose of driving up the price of the stock so they could sell shares they controlled at a profit." No evidence was presented to support this allegation. Respondent's counsel suggested that all of the financial statements in question were simply drafts and were not intended to be issued. The evidence established that Respondent executed a letter in connection with the August 17, 1987 Balance Sheet of Federal Restaurants which provided as follows: I have examined the accompanying Balance Sheet of Federal Restaurants, Inc., as of August 17, 1987 whose sole Assets are Cash and [sic] Purchase Deposit. My examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and accordingly, included such procedures as I considered necessary in the circumstances. In my opinion the enclosed Balance Sheet represents the financial position of Federal Restaurants, Inc., as of August 17, 1987 in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals. Similarly, Respondent's records include a signed letter to the Board of Directors of American British Enterprises in connection with the August 28, 1987 Consolidated Balance Sheet. That letter provides that Respondent conducted an examination "in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as I considered necessary in the circumstances." The letter further opines that the financial statements "present fairly the Consolidated Financial Position...[of the companies] in conformity with generally accepted accounting principals." Respondent's records also include a signed letter regarding both the November, 1988 and December, 1988 Financial Statements for American British Enterprises indicating that Respondent had conducted an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and that, in his opinion, the financial statements "present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position" of the company as of the stated date. There is no indication on any of these financial statements that they were drafts that were not to be issued. Aside from the letters noted in paragraph 22, the only evidence presented that any of the financial statements listed in paragraph 19 above were issued was the testimony of one of Petitioner's experts who suggested that the statements had to have been issued since they were found in the SEC's files. However, no direct evidence was presented to establish that any investors or potential investors received the financial statements. Moreover, no evidence was presented that any such investors suffered a loss as a result of their reliance upon the financial statements. Certified public accountants are required to utilize specific guidelines in the performance of accounting services. Those guidelines are codified in the Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services ("SSARS"). The failure to abide by the SSARS guidelines constitutes performance below acceptable accounting standards. Petitioner has presented testimony from two experts regarding the deficiencies in the various financial statements referenced in paragraph 19 above. Many of the problems cited by Petitioner's experts relate to alleged deficiencies in Respondent's work papers. Respondent's expert has challenged some of those alleged deficiencies. Because the work papers have not been offered into evidence, it is impossible to resolve some of the conflicts in the experts' opinions. Nonetheless, the evidence was sufficient to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Respondent's work was not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals in several respects and the financial reports identified in paragraph 19 failed to comply with the SSARS in several ways. The August 17, 1987 balance sheet of Federal Restaurants indicates that the only assets of the company were cash and a purchase deposit on a contract to acquire a restaurant. The balance sheet of Federal Restaurants as of August 17, 1987 has no notes to it. Accounting Principals Board ("APB") Opinion 22 provides that a description of all significant accounting policies of the reporting entities should be included as an integral part of the financial statements. In this particular instance, the omission of accounting policies is of minor importance since the balance sheet only reflects two assets: cash being held in escrow and a deposit on a contract to purchase a restaurant (the "Purchase Contract"). As discussed below, none of the financial statements prepared by Respondent disclosed the terms of the Purchase Contract. Furthermore, it appears from other documents in Respondent's records that the corporation is wholly owned by American British Enterprises and/or is jointly controlled, but there is no disclosure of that relationship in the financial statements. These omissions are significant deficiencies which have not been explained. Statement of Auditing Standards ("SAS") 41 requires work papers to support the conclusions of an audit. According to SAS 41, the work papers constitute the principal record of the work that the auditor has done and the conclusions that he has reached concerning significant matters. Respondent's records do not include work papers for the August 17, 1987 audit. SAS 22 provides guidance to an independent auditor making an examination in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards on the considerations and procedures applicable to planning and supervision, including preparing an audit program, obtaining knowledge of the entity's business, and dealing with differences of opinion among firm personnel. While there is conflicting evidence as to what was included in Respondent's work papers, the evidence was clear that Respondent's records for the August 17, 1987 audit do not comply with the requirements of SAS 22, because there was no clearly identified planning memos or audit programs. In fact, there is not even an engagement letter. SAS 19 requires an independent auditor to obtain certain written representations from management as part of an examination made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and provides guidance concerning the representations to be obtained. Petitioner's experts contend that Respondent's work papers do not include an appropriate representation letter from management for any of the Financial Statements. Respondent's expert contends there was such a letter with respect to the August 27, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements. While it is not clear what is contained in the records, it is clear that the records do not clarify conflicting documentation in Respondent's work papers regarding the relationship between Federal Restaurants and American British Enterprises. Furthermore, Respondent's records do not include a clear statement from management regarding the terms of the Purchase Contract and the apparent contingencies involved with that Contract. Consequently, Respondent has failed to comply with SAS 19 and SAS 45 (which addresses related-party disclosures). The August 27, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements are not properly consolidated in accordance with Accounting Research Bulletin ("ARB") 51. In addition, the consolidated Financial Statements do not include the disclosures required by Accounting Principals Board Opinion 22. Respondent's expert contends that the statements were mistakenly entitled and they should have been captioned as "combined" rather than consolidated financial statements. Even if this after the fact justification is accepted, the statements do not adequately disclose the relationship between the companies. Respondent's expert suggests that the August 25 Consolidated Financial Statement for American British Enterprises and Federal Restaurants reflects a voidable acquisition of Federal Restaurants by American British Enterprises. If this interpretation is accepted, the August 17, 1987 Balance Sheet for Federal Restaurants was not necessarily misleading for failure to disclose its relationship with American British Enterprises. However, the August 25, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements are incomplete since the transaction is not fully explained. Moreover, there is no disclosure that the companies were apparently under common control or ownership. With respect to the November, 1988 balance sheet of American British Enterprises, the evidence established that there was a discrepancy between the amount reflected in the financial statement for a note receivable which was the major asset of the corporation and the confirmation in the work papers regarding that asset. While this discrepancy may have been due to a discount and/or accrued interest, no explanation is provided. The discrepancy constitutes a violation of SAS 1, Section 331, which addresses the appropriate background information for receivables, and SAS 1, Section 530 which addresses the dating of the auditor's report. If the discrepancy is due to a discount, Respondent failed to comply with APB Opinion 6, paragraph 14 which requires unearned discounts to be shown as a deduction from the related receivable and/or APB Opinion 21, paragraph 16 which provides for the discount or premium to be reported on the balance sheet as a direct deduction from or addition to the face amount of the note. The work papers for the November audit do not include a reconciliation between the 1982 financial statements of the predecessor corporation and the 1987 statements. There is no documentation of efforts to communicate with the prior auditor nor is there any discussion of the consistency of application of accounting principals between the two statements. As a consequence, the statements do not conform with SAS 7 which addresses communications with a prior auditor. The work papers fail to reflect any audit work being performed on the appraisal for the equipment collateralizing the note. In addition, the work papers include a confirmation from the stock transfer agent that doesn't agree with the number of shares reflected on the financial statement. There is no explanation for this discrepancy nor is there any clear indication of the audit work performed. The financial statements also include a footnote referencing a joint venture agreement. Respondent's records do not include any evidence of audit work performed with respect to this venture agreement. The deficiencies noted in paragraph 33 also appear in the December 31, 1988 financial statements for American British Enterprises. Furthermore, Respondent's records do not contain an audit file for this December statement. The November 30, 1988 and the December 31, 1988 audits of American British Enterprises do not contain a segregation between current and noncurrent assets. This deficiency is relatively insignificant since the company was essentially just a holding company. However, it does constitute a violation of ARB 43. Similarly, the cash flows in the financial statements were not presented in the appropriate format or style required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 95. However, it appears that all of the necessary information was present. The deficiencies found in the financial statements prepared for Federal Restaurants and American British Enterprises constitute negligence on the Respondent's part and establish a failure to exercise professional competence and due professional care in the performance of accounting services. On or about June 14, 1990, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent and three other defendants alleging the preparation of false and misleading financial statements for American British Enterprises, Inc. On August 5, 1991, Respondent executed a Consent of Edwin Tunick to the Entry of a Final Judgement of Permanent Injunction in the civil action initiated by the SEC. On September 2, 1991, a Final Judgement of Permanent Injunction as to Edwin Tunick was entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Fort Lauderdale Division) in Case Number 90-6483CIV-ZLOCH. That Final Judgment "permanently restrained and enjoined" Respondent from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77q(a) and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C 78 (j)b and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Final Judgment did not include any specific findings of any violations of the federal securities laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Accountancy enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case Number 92-3421 (DPR Case Number 91-09729); finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 473.323(1)(a), (g) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rules 21A-22.0001, 21A-22.0002, and 21A-22.003, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case Number 92-5696 (DPR Case Number 90-13254) and dismissing the other charges in that Complaint. As penalty for the violations, Respondent should be fined $1,000, and his license should be suspended for three years. Before resuming practice, Respondent should be required to complete such mandatory continuing education courses as may be mandated by the Board and he should be placed on probation for three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is seeking licensure as a certified public accountant in Florida. Petitioner is licensed as a certified public accountant in the State of Pennsylvania. He is seeking licensure in Florida by endorsement based upon his Pennsylvania licensure without the necessity for taking an examination. Petitioner was initially licensed in Pennsylvania in 1961. The Board of Accountancy reviewed Petitioner's application and determined that he met all Florida requirements for education and experience, and that he was administered the same examination in Pennsylvania in 1961 that was administered in Florida in 1961. In a non-final order, however, the Board determined that Petitioner did not receive grades on the examination administered in Pennsylvania that would have constituted passing grades in Florida, and denied his application. The non-final order is the subject of a formal administrative proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings in Case No. 80-2332. The Board's rules require that an applicant for licensure as a certified public accountant receive a grade of 75 or above on all parts of an examination administered by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Rule 21A-28.05(2), (3), Florida Administrative Code. Rules in effect in 1961 also required that a grade of 75 or above would be required in all four subjects of the examination. Rules of the State Board of Accountancy Relative to Examinations and the Issuance and Revocation of Certificates, Rule 1(f).
