Findings Of Fact Tooze holds certificate number R-0434 as a Certified Public Accountant practicing in the State of Florida and held such certificate in good standing on January 1, 1974. At that time, Tooze was subject to professional certification requirements set forth in Chapter 473, Florida Statutes. The records of the Board reflect that Tooze provided no evidence of the completion of any courses or studies that would give him credits toward the reestablishment of his professional competency in the period between January 1, 1974, and April 2, 1977. On October 15, 1976, Tooze sat for an examination which was approved by the Board and given to practicing Certified Public Accountants pursuant to applicable law requiring re- establishment of professional competency. Tooze received a score of 64 out of a possible score of 100. The established passing grade for the examination is 75. Tooze received nine credit hours for the examination he took. On May 13, 1977, the Board suspended Tooze's certificate R-0434 as a Certified Public Accountant for failing to comply with requirements for the reestablishment of his professional knowledge and competency to practice public accounting. The questions to be answered in the uniform written professional examination administered to Tooze on October 15, 1976, were based upon "Current Authoritative Literature" which included Accounting Principles Board's Opinions, Accounting Research Bulletins, Statements and Interpretations of the Financial Accounting standards Board, Statements on Auditing standards, and the Laws and Rules of the Florida State Board of Accountancy. Tooze challenges sixteen of these one hundred questions on the grounds that the approved answers are incorrect and that the answer selected by Tooze is the proper choice. The questions attacked by Tooze are numbers 13, IS, 18, 51, 56, 61, 63, 67, 72, 74, 78, 80, 82, 95, 96 and 99. The title of the uniform written professional examination is "Examination of Current Authoritative Accounting and Auditing Literature and Rules of the Florida State Board of Accountancy. The approved answer to each of the questions on the examination is that which is mandated by the "Current Authoritative Literature." The examination does not purport to seek answers outside of the requirements of the Current Authoritative Literature. Each of the approved answers in the sixteen questions listed above are consistent with the demands of the Current Authoritative Literature. Each of Tooze's answers is contrary to the provisions of the Current Authoritative Literature. Accordingly, the answers selected by Tooze are not the best answers and were properly graded incorrect on his examination answer sheet.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's certified public accountant's license should be disciplined for the alleged violations set forth in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Flanagan & Baker, P. A. (respondent or firm), was a certified public accounting firm having been issued license number AD 0006179 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy (Board). When the events herein occurred, the firm's offices were located at 2831 Ringling Boulevard, Suite E-118, Sarasota, Florida, and John R. Flanagan and Michael L. Baker, both certified public accountants (CPA), were partners in the firm. In addition, Thomas A. Menchinger, also a CPA, was a junior partner. The firm has since been dissolved, and Flanagan and Menchinger have now formed a new firm known as Flanagan & Menchinger, P. A., at the same address. It is noted that Flanagan, Baker and Menchinger are not named as individual respondents in this proceeding, and at hearing respondent's representative assumed that only the firm's license was at risk. Whether license number AD 0006179 is still active or valid is not of record. In 1987, respondent, through its partner, Flanagan, accepted an engagement to prepare the 1986 calendar year financial statements for Ballantroe Condominium Association, Inc. (BCA or association), an owners' association for a fifty unit condominium in Sarasota. Financial statements are a historical accounting of what transpired for an entity during a particular period of time as well as the status of its assets, liabilities and equity on a given date. They are prepared for a variety of persons who rely upon them to see what transpired during that time period. If the statements are not properly prepared, the possibility exists that harm or other problems may accrue to the users of the statements. After the statements were prepared and issued, a unit owner made inquiry with respondent in August 1987 concerning two items in the statements. When he did not receive the desired response, the owner wrote the Department in September 1987 and asked for assistance in obtaining an opinion regarding the two items. Eventually, the matter was turned over to a Board consultant, Marlyn D. Felsing, and he reviewed the statements in question. Although Felsing found no problems with the two items raised by the owner, he noted what he perceived to be other errors or irregularities in the statements. This led to the issuance of an administrative complaint on September 29, 1988 charging the firm of Flanagan & Baker, P. A., with negligence in the preparation of the statements and the violation of three Board rules. That precipitated the instant controversy. The engagement in question represented the first occasion that the firm had performed work for BCA. The association's annual financial statements from its inception in 1980 through calendar year 1983 had been prepared by Touche Ross & Company, a national accounting firm, and for the years 1984 and 1985 by Mercurio and Bridgford, P. A., a Sarasota accounting firm. Some of these statements have been received in evidence. As a part of the Board investigation which culminated in the issuance of a complaint, Felsing visited respondent's firm, interviewed its principals, and reviewed the work papers and financial statements. A formal report reflecting the results of his investigation was prepared in June 1988 and has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 1. In preparing his report, Felsing relied upon a number of authoritative pronouncements in the accounting profession which underlie the concept of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). These included various opinions issued by the Accounting Principles Board (APB), Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS) issued by the Auditing Standards Board, and Accounting Research Bulletins (ARB) issued by the Committee on Accounting Procedure. The three organizations are a part of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). With regard to the concept of materiality, which requires an accountant to consider the relative importance of any event, accounting procedure or change in procedure that affects items on the statements, Felsing did not exclude any matters on the ground they were immaterial. Rather, he included all possible irregularities, regardless of their materiality, on the theory that the probable cause panel (for which the report was initially prepared) should consider all items in the aggregate. According to Felsing, a number of irregularities or errors were found in the financial statements prepared by respondent. These are discussed separately in the findings below. The first alleged deficiency noted by Felsing concerned a change by the association from accelerated to the straight-line method of depreciation. According to APB 20, such a change is considered to be significant, and "the cumulative effect of changing to a new accounting principle on the amount of retained earnings at the beginning of the period in which the change is made should be included in net income of the period of the change." In other words, APB 20 requires the cumulative effect of the change to be reported in the net income of the current year. However, respondent accounted for the change as a prior period adjustment on the statement of members' equity. Respondent justified its treatment of the item on the ground the prior year's statements prepared by Mercurio and Bridgford, P. A., did not show any accumulated depreciation. Thus, respondent asserted it was merely correcting an error because the other firm had not reported depreciation on the balance sheet. In addition, respondent noted that the effect on the balance sheet was only $721, deemed the item to be immaterial, and concluded its treatment of the item was appropriate. However, APB 20 requires the auditor to address the cumulative effect of the change ($2,072) rather than the effect of only the current year ($721), and therefore the cumulative effect should have been reported in current income. By failing to do so, respondent deviated from GAAP. The association had designated several cash accounts as being reserve accounts for deferred maintenance and replacements. Under ARB 43, such accounts must be segregated in the balance sheet from other cash accounts that are available for current operations. This would normally be done in a separate classification called "other assets" so that the user of the statements would be aware of the fact that the reserves were not available for current operations. However, the statements reflect that three such reserve accounts were placed under the classification of current assets. It is noted that these accounts totaled $25,514, $18,550 and $30,927, respectively. While respondent recognized the difference between cash available for current operations and reserves for future use, and the requirements of ARB 43, it noted that the association's minute book reflected the association regularly withdrew funds from the accounts throughout the year to cover current operations. Also, the prior year's statements prepared by Mercurio and Bridgford, P. A., had classified the item in the same fashion. Even so, if respondent was justified in classifying the accounts as current assets, it erred by identifying those accounts as "reserves" under the current assets portion of the balance sheet. Therefore, a deviation from GAAP occurred. One of the most important items in a condominium association's financial statements is how it accounts for the accumulation and expenditure of reserves, an item that is typically significant in terms of amount. The accounting profession does not recommend any one methodology but permits an association to choose from a number of alternative methods. In this regard, APB 22 requires that an entity disclose all significant accounting policies, including the choice made for this item. This disclosure is normally made in the footnotes to the financial statements. In this case, no such disclosure was made. Respondent conceded that it failed to include a footnote but pointed out that when the statements were prepared by Touche Ross & Company, one of the world's largest accounting firms, that firm had made no disclosure on the basis of immateriality. However, reliance on a prior year's statements is not justification for a deviation from GAAP. It is accordingly found that APB 22 is controlling, and footnote disclosure should have been made. The financial statements contain a schedule of sources and uses of cash for the current fiscal year. According to APB 19, all transactions in this schedule should be reported at gross amounts irrespective of whether they utilize cash. However, respondent reported all transactions in the schedule at their net amount. In justifying its action, respondent again relied upon the prior years' statements of Touche Ross & Company and Mercurio and Bridgford, P. A., who reported the transactions in the same manner. It also contended the item was immaterial and that a detailed explanation of the item is found in the statement of members' equity. Despite these mitigating factors, it is found that the schedule was inconsistent with APB 19, and a deviation from GAAP occurred. Felsing's next concern involved the language used by respondent in footnote 6 to the statements. That footnote pertained to the unfunded reserve and read as follows: NOTE VI - UNFUNDED RESERVE As of December 31, 1986, the Association reserves amounted to $103,953 consisting of $18,931 as a reserve for depreciation and statutory reserves of $85,022. The amount funded was $95,422 leaving an unfunded balance of $8,531 due to the reserves from the operating funds. Felsing characterized the footnote as "confusing" because it referred to depreciation as a part of a future reserve for replacements. Felsing maintained the footnote contained inappropriate wording since depreciation relates to assets already placed in service and not to their replacements. Respondent agreed that the footnote, taken by itself, might be confusing. However, it contended that if the user read the preceding footnote, which he should, there would be no possible confusion. That footnote read as follows: NOTE V - RESERVE FOR DEPRECIATION The Association funds the reserves for depreciation through its operating budget. These funds are to be used for the replacement of property and equipment as the need arises. As previously noted, the Association changed its method of computing depreciation to conform with generally accepted accounting principles. As of December 31, 1986, the reserve for depreciation totaled $18,931. According to respondent, the above footnote made clear to the user that the firm was not referring to depreciation as a reserve but rather was setting aside funds equal to depreciation in an effort to have sufficient cash to purchase assets in the future. While the deficiency here is highly technical and minute in nature, it is found that the footnote is not sufficiently clear and that the user might be confused. Felsing next observed that the footnotes did not disclose how the association accounted for lawn equipment or other capital assets. According to APB 22, such a choice is considered a significant accounting policy and, whatever policy is utilized, the same must be disclosed in the footnotes to the statements. In response, Flanagan pointed to a footnote in Note I of the statements which read in part as follows: Property and Equipment and Depreciation Property and equipment capitalized by the Association is stated at cost. During 1986, the Association changed its method of depreciation from the accelerated cost recovery method to a straight line method in which property and equipment is depreciated over its estimated useful life in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. According to respondent, this footnote was adequate in terms of explaining the method of depreciation. Also, a number of other statements were introduced into evidence to show that other entities routinely used a corresponding footnote. Flanagan's testimony is accepted as being the most credible and persuasive evidence on this issue, and the footnote is accordingly deemed to be adequate disclosure on this policy. In the statement of members' equity, there is an item in the amount of $1,730 described as "capitalization of lawn equipment expensed in previous year." Although Felsing did not question the amount shown, he faulted respondent for not properly describing whether the item was a change in accounting principle or an error correction. According to APB 20, the disclosure of an error correction is required in the period in which the error was discovered and corrected. Although respondent considered the footnote described in finding of fact 11 to constitute adequate disclosure, it is found that such disclosure falls short of the requirements of APB 20. Work papers are records and documentary evidence kept by the accountant of the procedures applied, tests performed, information obtained and pertinent conclusions reached in the engagement. They serve the purpose of documenting the work performed and provide verification for the accountant. In addition, another important, required tool is the audit program, a written plan for how the auditor intends to perform the audit. The plan serves the purpose of documenting the accountant's mental process of deciding what procedures are necessary to perform the audit and to communicate those procedures to the persons actually conducting the audit. The audit plan should include in reasonable detail all of the audit procedures necessary for the accountant to perform the audit and express an opinion on the financial statements. Although a variety of checklists have been prepared by the AICPA and other organizations, each audit program must be tailored to fit the needs of a particular client. Felsing noted what he believed to be a number of deficiencies with respect to respondent's work papers, audit program, and engagement planning. In reaching that conclusion, Felsing relied upon various SAS pronouncements which govern that phase of an auditor's work. Those pronouncements have been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibits 7-14. Although the work papers themselves were not introduced into evidence, Felsing stated that his review of them reflected they were "deficient" in several respects. For example, he did not find a planning memorandum, time budget, checklist or other evidence that planning procedures were performed as required by SAS 22. In this regard, Flanagan corroborated the fact that no formal planning memorandum to the file was prepared. Although respondent's audit program was written for a condominium association, Felsing found it "extremely brief" and was not tailored to this particular client. He opined that such a program should have included reasonable detail of all audit procedures necessary to accomplish the audit and to express an opinion on the financial statements. In particular, it was noted that some required procedures were not on the list while some procedures actually used by respondent were not included. Through conversations with respondent's members, Felsing learned that much of the audit work was performed by Menchinger, the junior partner in the firm. In addition, "a few" other work papers were prepared by an unknown assistant. Although Menchinger reviewed all work performed by the assistant, Felsing found no evidence that the papers were reviewed by the supervising partner, Flanagan. Such review, which is a required step in the audit process, is generally evidenced by the supervising partner placing check marks or initials on the individual work papers. Felsing noted further that the decision to rely on the testing of internal controls was not documented in the work papers by respondent. He added that the amount of time budgeted by respondent for this engagement (around thirty hours) was inadequate given the fact that it was the first year the firm had prepared this client's statements. Finally, Felsing concluded that the violations were not peculiar to a condominium association but were applicable to all enterprises. Respondent pointed out that the association was a small client with less than five hundred line items, and the audit program and engagement planning were planned within that context. Respondent introduced into evidence its audit program which contained the steps taken by the firm in planning for the engagement. Testimony that all steps contained therein were followed was not contradicted. Similarly, Flanagan testified without contradiction that he reviewed all work performed by Menchinger but did not evidence his review with tick marks on each page. According to Flanagan, on a small audit such as this, he considered the signing of the tax return and opinion letter evidence that he had reviewed the work papers. However, Flanagan acknowledged that someone examining the papers would not know they had been reviewed by the supervising partner. Based upon the above findings, and after reconciling the conflicting testimony, it is found that respondent violated GAAP by failing to have a planning memorandum, time budget, and evidence of testing of internal controls within its work papers. All other alleged violations are found to without merit. Respondent has continued to represent the association since the Board issued its complaint. Indeed, Flanagan noted that the association is pleased with the firm's work, and this was corroborated by a letter from the association's board of directors attesting to its satisfaction with the firm. There was no evidence that the association or any other third party user of the statements was injured or misled by relying on the statements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of the violations discussed in the conclusions of law portion of this Recommended Order, and that license number AD 0006179 be given a reprimand. All other charges should be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 30th day of October 1989.
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 Shechet holds Certificate No. R-0573 as a certified public accountant practicing in the State of Florida, which he received by virtue of reciprocal status, having previously practiced in the State of Ned York. Shechet began his accounting career in 1924 and has practiced his profession continuously for the fifty-three years since that time. The records of the Board reflect that Shechet provided no evidence of the completion of any courses or studies that would give him credits towards the reestablishment of his professional competency in the period between January 1, 1974, and April 2, 1977. On September 15, 1975, Shechet sat for an examination which was approved by the Hoard and given to practicing certified public accountants pursuant to applicable law requiring reestablishment of professional competency. Shechet received a score of 3 out of a possible score of 100. The established passing grade for the examination is 75. The examination consisted of 100 multiple choice questions, each with 4 responses. The approved method of answering the questions was to select one response and then, on the answer sheet, darken the circle corresponding to the letter assigned to the selected response. If more than one circle is darkened in a given set of responses, the answer is marked wrong. In each of the 100 answers, Shechet marked more than one response either by darkening, check mark or "X". On May 13, 1977, the State Board of Accountancy suspended Shechet's certificate R-0573 as a certified public accountant for failing to comply with requirements for the reestablishment of his professional knowledge and competency to practice public accounting.
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether the Respondent has violated the sections cited in the Administrative Complaint as alleged. Both parties submitted posthearing findings of fact, which were read and considered. Those findings not incorporated herein are found to be subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary, or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Paul R. Ashe, is a certified public accountant who was issued a license number 1968 by the Board of Accountants. (See Respondent's admissions.) The Respondent was found guilty in the United States District Court, Las Vegas, Nevada, of fraud by wire and of the interstate transportation of false and forged securities. The Respondent is currently under a pending sentence of three years in prison on each count, to run concurrently, and a fine of $10,000. (See Respondent's admissions). The licensure file of the Respondent maintained by the Board of Accountants (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) reveals that the Respondent was licensed as a certified public accountant in the State of Florida on December 3, 1965. The file further reveals that the Respondent's licensure to practice public accounting was placed in an inoperative (inactive) status at the request of the Respondent on or about February 28, 1977. While in an inoperative status, a certified public accountant may not practice and is not issued a license. However, the accountant is not required to keep up his continuing professional education credits or to pay annual license fees. An accountant in an inoperative status may reactive his license upon paying all back annual licensure fees and demonstrating that he has completed all required continuing professional education course hours. On September 26, 1982, the Respondent requested and received conditional reactivation of his license to practice public accounting in the State of Florida, which was made permanent on February 8, 1983. In this proceeding, the Respondent testified in his own behalf. His testimony was credible and uncontroverted. The Respondent received his certified public accountant certificate on December 3, 1965. He worked for the Internal Revenue Service for three years and subsequently practiced public accounting while working with a life insurance company and attending law school. After obtaining a law degree and admission to the Bar, Respondent practiced tax law and maintained his active license as a certified public accountant. In 1977, because the continuing professional education requirements for both professions were becoming burdensome, the Respondent placed his certified public accountant license in an inoperative status. Since he was a child, the Respondent has suffered from pathologic compulsive gambling. It was this compulsion which gave rise to his conviction on the federal charges referenced above. The Respondent now has this disorder under control after receiving professional counseling and is a member of Gamblers' Anonymous. As an attorney practicing tax law and providing investment counseling services, the Respondent maintained large trust accounts during the entire period he was actively gambling. Audits of his personal trust accounts reveal no shortage of any client's account. The Respondent stated, and his testimony was uncontroverted, that he had never violated any client's trust account or any trust relationship. The charges on which the Respondent was convicted arose out of a series of events which began in 1974 on a gambling trip to Las Vegas, Nevada. At that time, the Respondent became deeply indebted to various casinos in Las Vegas. Some of those casinos relieved the Respondent of his indebtedness upon his promise not to gamble further in their casinos. (Tr. 136, 173.) The Respondent paid his gambling debts at other casinos to maintain his right to continue to gamble there. In 1975, the Respondent returned to Las Vegas with his step-father. At that time, a line of credit was established in the step-father's name, and the Respondent and his step-father gambled on the step-father's line of credit. Respondent's step-father was worried about the Respondent's gambling problems and, at the conclusion of this gambling junket, took several checks from his checkbook, signed them in blank, and gave them to the Respondent with instructions that should the Respondent get into trouble the Respondent should use them. Upon returning home from this gambling junket, the Respondent's step- father died. On the weekend of July 4, 1976, the Respondent went to Las Vegas on a gambling junket. Prior to arriving there, he had established a line of credit of $54,000. Near the conclusion of his junket, he had lost the $54,000 and, in seeking to win back his losses, used the checks given to him by his step-father. The Respondent issued three checks totaling $55,000 to three different casinos to pay off the gambling debts he had incurred and to reestablish his line of credit. It was the uttering of these checks on his deceased step-father's checking account which gave rise to the federal charges of interstate transport of a forged or false security, and the casinos' subsequent use of the telephone to check the Respondent's credit which gave rise to the federal charges of fraud by wire. The Respondent believed that the account upon which the checks were drawn contained sufficient funds to cover the checks and that the account was active. However, several weeks or months before, the Respondent's mother had closed the account without his knowledge. In 1977, the Suma Corporation (Hughes' hotels) initiated charges through the U.S. Attorney on one of the checks in the amount of $11,250. When the Respondent made this check good, Suma Corporation withdrew its complaint against him and made him persona non grata at the Hughes' hotels. By this time, the Respondent's family had become quite concerned about his gambling, and he had been divorced from his wife and lost custody of his children. The Respondent sought to conceal his further gambling from his family. In November 1977, the Respondent was overcome by the urge to gamble. Having settled a substantial case, he opened a bank account under the assumed name of Paul Allen and went to Las Vegas. The Respondent used this assumed name because he did not want his family to find out he was gambling in Las Vegas. While at the MGM Hotel, his real identify was discovered, and he was compelled to pay the MGM Hotel all the monies which he owed it. This event initiated a reinvestigation of the previous 1976 check-passing incident, which resulted in his indictment in 1979-1980 and his subsequent conviction. Lawrence Dale Scheaffer was a client of Respondent from 1976 until the present. The Respondent provided Scheaffer with information and professional advice concerning Scheaffer's retirement plan, both as an attorney and later as a certified public accountant. Scheaffer and others testified concerning the Respondent's reputation in the community, where the Respondent is reputed to be honest and of good character.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondent did not violate the statutes as alleged in Counts I, II or III of the Administrative Complaint, the Hearing Officer recommends that the charges against the Respondent be dismissed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of February 1984 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 February 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffrey J. Fitos, Esquire One East Silver Springs Boulevard Ocala, Florida 32670 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martha Willis, Executive Director Board of Accountancy 4001 NW 43rd Street, Suite 16 Gainesville, Florida 32306 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner's "change of status" application should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner has an undergraduate and master's degree in civil engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology (received in 1962 and 1964, respectively) and a law degree from Emory University (received in 1980). In 1968, Petitioner went into the consulting business, and he has had his own business ever since. Since 1968, Petitioner has been licensed as a professional engineer, at one time or another, in approximately 20 different states, including Florida. He has held his Florida license since 1970. The other states in which he is currently licensed are Georgia, Alabama, New York, and Maryland. Petitioner is licensed to practice law in Georgia, but is on inactive status. Petitioner has been licensed as a real estate broker in Florida since 2001 or 2002. Petitioner has been certified as a general contractor in Florida since 1980. He was the qualifier for McKinney Drilling Company from 1980 until 1994. Since 1994, he has been the qualifier for Pressure Concrete, Inc. (Pressure), which approximately a year ago was purchased by Proshot Concrete, Inc. (Proshot). Petitioner has never received any discipline in connection with any of the professional licenses he has held over the years, including the certification allowing him to engage in general contracting in Florida; nor does he have any criminal record. Petitioner has not undertaken any construction or consulting project that has resulted in a lawsuit, judgment, or lien being filed. Petitioner has not been involved in any project where there has been a default triggering a claim against a payment or performance bond. All of the vendors and suppliers he has used on construction projects have been paid. Petitioner has never filed for bankruptcy. There are no lawsuits now pending against Petitioner. In or around September 2006, Petitioner completed and submitted an application to the Board seeking a "change of status" in his certification to enable him (as a general contractor) to qualify Proshot instead of Pressure. Petitioner used a Board-generated form, DBPR CILB 4363-Change of Status Application From One Business Entity to Another (Form), to apply for such a "change of status." The "Financial Responsibility" section of the Form contained the following questions and accompanying instructions: NOTE: If you answer "Yes" to any of the questions below, you must provide an explanation on DBPR 0060-General Explanatory Description form and attach legal documentation, i.e., satisfaction of lien, judgment, payment schedule, etc. If you have been convicted of a felony, you must submit proof of reinstatement of civil rights. The following persons must answer the financial responsibility questionnaire: Qualifying Agent All Owners/Partners Have you, or a partnership in which you were a partner, or an authorized representative, or a corporation in which you were an officer or an authorized representative ever: Undertaken construction contracts or work that a third party, such as a bonding or surety company, completed or made financial settlements? Had claims or lawsuits filed for unpaid past-due bills by your creditors as a result of construction operations? Undertaken construction contracts or work which resulted in liens, suits, or judgments being filed? (If yes, you must attach a copy of Notice of Lien and any payment agreement, satisfaction, Release of Lien or other proof of payment.) Had a lien filed against you by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service or Florida Corporate Tax Division? Made an assignment of assets in settlement of construction obligations for less than the debts outstanding? Been charged with or convicted of acting as a contractor without a license, or, if licensed as a contractor in this or any other state, been subject to any disciplinary action by a state, county, or municipality? (If yes, you must attach a copy of any state, county, municipal or out- of-state disciplinary order or judgment.) Filed for or been discharged in bankruptcy within the past five years? (If "yes," you must attach a copy of the Discharge Order, Order Confirming Plan, or if a Corporate Chapter 7 case, a copy of the Notice of Commencement.) Been convicted or found guilty of or entered a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction? Note: If you, the applicant/licensee, have had a felony conviction, proof that your civil rights have been restored will be required prior to Licensure. Petitioner answered "No" to all of these questions, believing, in good faith, that such information was accurate. The final page of the Form contained the following "Attest Statement," which Respondent signed: I have read the questions in this application and have answered them completely and truthfully to the best of my knowledge. I have successfully completed the education, if any, required for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought. I have the amount of experience required, if any, for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought. I pledge to comply with the applicable standards of practice upon licensure, registration, or certification. I understand the types of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings may be initiated. As part of the application process, Petitioner made the necessary arrangements with Advantage Information Services, LLC (Advantage) to directly provide the Board with a credit report. On or about October 26, 2006, Advantage sent the Board a two-page Transunion credit report (Transunion Report) containing Petitioner's "credit profile," along with a one-page report of the results of a "check[]" of public records at the "local, statewide, and national level" (Records Check Report). The Transunion Report revealed a federal tax lien in the amount of $35,100.00 that had been filed against Petitioner in 1997 for unpaid personal income taxes. Petitioner was aware of this lien at the time he filled out the Form, but did not report it in response to Question 4 of the "Financial Responsibility" section because he did not understand the question to ask about liens such as this one which were unrelated to his business activities. The Internal Revenue Service is withholding 15% of Petitioner's monthly Social Security benefit and applying it to reduce the amount Petitioner owes for his unpaid personal federal income taxes. The Records Check Report read as follows: Public records have been checked on a local, statewide, and national level and are incorporated within the report. Additional records are as follows: Cheatham Register of Deeds, TN - Federal Tax Lien Release, 01/11/2005, Case #74147 - Book/Page 131/552 - $30,908.00 - Not Paid. Plaintiff: IRS Walton County Superior Court GA - County Tax Lien, 03/12/1998, $387.00 - Not Paid. Case Number - B3P253C, Book/Page - 3/253 Plaintiff: County Tax Assessor Dekalb County State Court, GA - Civil Judgment, 05/01/1991, $49,283.00 - Not Paid. Case Number - 814497 Plaintiff: Bank South The 1998 Walton County Tax lien noted in the Records Check Report concerned an assessment made on tangible personal property in the form of an airplane owned, not by Petitioner, but by a corporation of which he was the president. The lien did not arise out of any activities in which Petitioner was engaged as a general contractor. The 1991 Dekalb County civil judgment noted in the Records Check Report required Petitioner to repay a bank loan Petitioner had co-signed for a friend. It too had nothing to do with his activities as a general contractor. It was only after the Board had provided Petitioner with a copy of the Records Check Report that Petitioner first became aware of the existence of the 1998 Walton County Tax lien and the 1991 Dekalb County civil judgment.2 As noted above, on April 18, 2007, the Board issued its Notice of Intent to Deny Petitioner's "change of status" application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board find Petitioner qualified for the "change of status" for which he has applied. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to pay Petitioner for the expenses of an examination and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed Florida domestic insurer operating under a current certificate of authority. Prior to the above-styled proceeding, Petitioner and Respondent were involved in another administrative proceeding. Petitioner seeks in the subject case to impose discipline for Respondent's refusal to reimburse Petitioner for audit expenses incurred during and after the prior administrative litigation. In DOAH Case No. 87-4518, Petitioner alleged, by Notice and Order to Show Cause filed September 11, 1987, that Respondent was in unsound financial condition, using methods of business that rendered its further transacting of insurance hazardous to policyholders and the public, in violation of a lawful order or rule of Petitioner, and in a financial condition that endangered the interests of policyholders, especially because its ratio of net premiums written to surplus exceeded 4:1. The Notice and Order to Show Cause alleges that the projected annualized ratio of net premiums written to surplus would exceed 4:1 by year- end; Respondent was not properly reserving for losses and expenses in connection with liability policies; the annual and quarterly statements reflect a continuing serious deficiency in loss reserves; financial deterioration seriously endangered the welfare of policyholders and the public; and major material discrepancies existed between Respondent's 1986 annual statement filed with Petitioner and Respondent's 1986 audited annual financial statements. The major material discrepancies between the financial statements consisted of allegations that the surplus was overstated by $41,327 in the annual statement filed with Petitioner; the loss adjustment expenses and loss reserves were carried at $1.4 million on the annual statement filed with Petitioner, but $2.7 million on the financial statement; and the unearned premiums were carried at $3.5 million on the annual statement filed with Petitioner, but $2.1 million on the financial statement. Three days prior to the filing of the Notice and Order to Show Cause, Petitioner commenced a financial examination of Respondent. The examination, which began on September 8, 1987, was a target examination. The other type of financial examination conducted by Petitioner is a triennial examination, which is performed not less frequently than every three years. Unlike the triennial examination, a target examination focuses on particular matters--in this case discrepancies between financial statements. Because Respondent commenced doing business on April 5, 1985, it had not yet been the subject of a triennial examination. The target examination is also different from an investigation, which focuses on the business practices of individuals rather than financial matters of insurers. Due to a perceived lack of reliability with respect to Respondent's accounting records, the scope of the examination was extended to include an analysis of all of Respondent's accounts. This broadening of scope took place during the first audit examination, which culminated with the Report on Examination for the period ending June 30, 1987. With respect to its examination of Respondent, Petitioner incurred, during the months indicated, the following audit expenses, all of which are reasonable: September, 1987 $7,889.00 October, 1987 10,682.00 November, 1987 10,678.00 December, 1987 8,931.65 January, 1988 10,401.00 February, 1988 2,051.80 March, 1988 645.40 July, 1988 237.70 August, 1988 5,795.80 September, 1988 5,564.40 October, 1988 2,645.40 January, 1989 610.80 TOTAL $66,132.95 10. On April 13, 1988, counsel for Petitioner and Respondent in DOAH Case No. 87-4518 met to discuss a settlement. Memorializing the meeting, Respondent's counsel acknowledged by letter dated April 13 that Petitioner's counsel indicated a desire "to go back into the company for the purpose of bringing forward the audit that was completed earlier this year." Respondent's counsel suggested a date for Petitioner's auditors to commence another audit and advised that he would postpone discovery in the hopes of settling many of the issues. Negotiations proved successful. On July 14, 1988, the final signatures were affixed to a Joint Settlement Stipulation for Agreed Order (Stipulation). The Stipulation recites in material part: [Petitioner] conducted an investigation of [Respondent], and alleged that it was in violation [of] certain provisions of the Florida Insurance Code. These violations included its ratio of net premiums written to surplus as to policyholders and its statutory insurer capital and surplus requirements. [Petitioner] conducted an examination of the company and on March 24, 1988, issued a Report on Examination of [Respondent] as of June 30, 1987. The Stipulation provides that the Insurance Commissioner may enter an order providing, among other things, that the Stipulation shall be incorporated by reference and that "[e]ach party to this case shall bear its costs, expenses and fees, including attorney's fees." The reference to "expenses" was added at the request of Respondent's counsel. The Consent Order, which was filed August 2, 1988, incorporates by reference the Stipulation and provides that "each party to this proceeding shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees." In November or early December, 1988, Respondent received an invoice for audit examination fees incurred from August through October, 1988. As was the case with prior invoices, the invoice recited a past-due amount. A letter dated December 15, 1988, from Respondent's president responds to the invoice by stating that the past-due amount is "apparently for fees and expenses incurred by [Petitioner] in performance of an audit examination done during the months of September, 1987 through April 1988. This obligation has been satisfied by [the] . . . Stipulation . . .." The December 15 letter does not object to the audit fees incurred during August through October, 1988. The December 15 letter notes that Petitioner, immediately after filing the Notice and Order to Show Cause in September, 1987, began a "complete audit . . . to support its allegations that [Respondent] was in financial circumstances justifying the . . . Order to Show Cause." The letter adds that, pursuant to the Stipulation, Respondent bore its accounting expenses in connection with the audit examination, just as Petitioner must bear its audit examination expenses. The audit examinations conducted prior to the settlement of DOAH Case No. 87-4518 served the purpose of discovery for Petitioner. Respondent never sought a protective order as to these fact-finding efforts. Although Petitioner conducted no investigation, the allegations in DOAH Case No. 87- 4518 involved Respondent's financial condition, not the business practices of individuals, so an investigation would have been inappropriate. The early audit examinations culminated in a Report on Examination for the period ending June 30, 1987. The Report on Examination was issued on March 24, 1988. Later audit examinations culminated in a Report of Examination for the period ending June 30, 1988. This Report of Examination, which was issued on February 26, 1988, states: This is the second report on examination of [Respondent] and represents a continuation and follow-up to the report filed as of June 30, 1987. The effect of the Stipulation and ensuing Consent Order is that Petitioner agreed to absorb all audit examination expenses incurred through the preparation of the Report on Examination for the period ending June 30, 1987. These audit examination expenses ended on or about March 24, 1988, when the first Report on Examination was issued. The March, 1988, audit expenses of $645.40 appear to be related to the issuance of the first Report on Examination because all of the activity occurs in the four days prior and two days after March 24. The audit examination expenses incurred through the preparation of the Report on Examination for the period ending June 30, 1987, total $51,278.85. The letter of December 15, 1988, from the president of Respondent disputes the past-due billing of $51,278.85 because "this obligation" was discharged by the Stipulation. This letter ignores the current billing for audit expenses incurred during August through October, 1988, because the writer knew that these fees were not intended to be covered by the Stipulation. The letter of April 13, 1988, from Respondent's counsel acknowledges the hiatus disclosed by the monthly statements. By April 13, 1988, there had been a break in audit examinations. The April 13 letter discusses an "updated audit" beginning perhaps May 9, 1988; covering the March 31, 1988, quarter; and hopefully taking less than the five months expended in the first audit resulting in the Report on Examination for the period ending June 30, 1987. In effect, the April 13 letter seeks a settlement in the near future, so that discovery need not be begun, while recognizing that another audit would not be completed for several months. The author of the April 13 letter claims that he intended to include in a settlement agreement, which he hoped would be finalized in the near-term, future audit expenses to be incurred over a period of months. If so, the burden was on the author to identify explicitly these future expenses in the Stipulation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order suspending the certificate of authority of Respondent until the earlier of: a) six months or b) such time as Respondent complies with prior lawful orders of the Department of Insurance by remitting the sum of $14,854.10 and pays an administrative fine of $2500. ENTERED this 15 day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15 day of July, 1992.
