Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Chapter 473 and rules promulgated thereunder as set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Order. His license should be suspended for one year with probation thereafter for a period of two years. He should also be required to take such additional continuing education courses as the Board deems appropriate. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1986.
The Issue Whether Commercial Carrier Corporation (Petitioner), has the financial strength necessary to ensure the timely payment of all current and future workers' compensation claims in the State of Florida; Whether Petitioner has maintained a net worth of at least $1 million during the period 1999 to 2004; and Whether Petitioner shall post an additional qualifying security deposit to remain qualified to self-insure and the amount of the additional security deposit to be posted.
Findings Of Fact Upon careful consideration, it is found and determined as follows: Petitioner, Commercial Carrier Corporation, is a privately-owned trucking company headquartered in Auburndale, Florida, which has been in business for over 50 years. Petitioner is one of five operating subsidiaries of Comcar Industries, Inc. (Comcar), whose primary business is truckload transportation of general and specialized commodities in the continental United States. Comcar routinely prepares consolidated financial statements reflecting the operations of all five subsidiary companies. Although Petitioner is the nominal Petitioner, Comcar is the de facto Petitioner in this proceeding. All of Comcar’s subsidiaries operate as self- insured in Florida. Petitioner has been self-insured for workers’ compensation in Florida since January 1, 1973. Pursuant to Florida law, Respondent has jurisdiction over Petitioner as a self-insured employer for purposes of workers’ compensation. Under Florida law, the general requirement is that employers must obtain and maintain workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The exception of this general requirement is found in Subsection 440.38(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), whereby an employer can seek to qualify to self-insure by "furnishing satisfactory proof to the Florida Self-Insurers Guaranty Association, Inc., . . . that it has the financial strength necessary to ensure the timely payment of all current and future claims[.]" FSIGA is a not-for-profit corporation established by Section 440.385, Florida Statutes (2004), to guarantee payment of the covered workers’ compensation claims by employees of self-insurers that become insolvent. Other than governmental entities and public utilities, all self-insurers, including Petitioner, must be members of FSIGA. FSIGA pays the covered claims of current and former insolvent self-insurer members to the extent an insolvent self-insurer’s security deposit is insufficient. An insolvency fund is established and managed by FSIGA for the purpose of meeting the obligations of insolvent members after exhaustion of any security deposit. The insolvency fund is funded by assessments from members of FSIGA. Accordingly, FSIGA and all of its members share an interest in ensuring adherence to the legislative standard that only financially strong employers are granted the privilege to self- insure. To maintain self-insurer status, an employer must submit annual financial statements no later than four months following the end of the self-insured’s fiscal year and furnish satisfactory proof to FSIGA that it has the financial strength necessary to ensure timely payment of all current and future claims. The financial statements that must be submitted to FSIGA for financial analysis must be prepared in accordance with the United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). GAAP-prepared financial statements must show, at all times, a net worth of $1 million. The requirements of furnishing proof of the requisite financial strength and maintaining a net worth of at least $1 million, as shown on the employer’s financial statements, are continuing annual requirements to become and remain qualified to self-insure, and those requirements are applied equally to applicants and current members. FSIGA is required to review the financial strength of its current members. It makes recommendations to Respondent regarding the members’ continuing qualification to self-insure and the amount of security deposit that should be required of each member. If FSIGA determines that a current member does not have the financial strength necessary to ensure the timely payment of all current and estimated future claims, it may recommend that Respondent require an increase in the member’s security deposit. FSIGA operates under a statutorily-approved plan of operations. FSIGA’s plan of operation provides that its executive director has the responsibility to make FSIGA’s recommendations to Respondent. FSIGA’s recommendations are based upon a review of the financial information collected from member employers. It may include recommendations regarding the appropriate security deposit amount necessary for a self-insured employer to demonstrate that it has the financial strength to ensure timely payment of all current and future claims. Respondent is required to accept FSIGA’s recommendations unless it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the recommendations are erroneous. 2002 Financial Review of Petitioner Petitioner is currently a member of FSIGA and has posted a qualifying security deposit of $2,500,000.00. On October 2, 2002, Brian D. Gee, C.P.A., who is now FSIGA’s executive director, completed a review of Petitioner’s audited financial statements for 1999, 2000, and 2001. Gee was FSIGA's financial analyst, responsible for conducting financial reviews and developing information for FSIGA's executive director, to determine the financial strength of self-insured members and make recommendations to Respondent. Gee’s review of Petitioner’s financial statement consisted of an assessment of Petitioner’s liquidity, profitability, degree of leverage, liabilities compared to net worth, and cash flow generated by operations. He also reviewed the financial statements to determine if Petitioner was maintaining a net worth of at least $1 million. Gee concluded that Petitioner did not have the financial strength necessary to ensure the timely payment of current and estimated future workers’ compensation claims. On October 8, 2002, FSIGA's executive director forwarded a letter to the Division of Workers’ Compensation, Department of Insurance (now Respondent). He recommended to Respondent that Petitioner be ordered to increase its security deposit to 150 percent of actuarially determined loss reserves. FSIGA’s recommendations were reviewed by Cynthia Shaw, assistant general counsel for the Division of Workers’ Compensation. Shaw drafted a letter for signature by Mark Casteel, General Counsel for Respondent, which adopted FSIGA's recommendations. Casteel signed that letter dated October 28, 2002, without revision or discussion. Shaw, an attorney, has no financial background or expertise. Shaw did not perform any additional financial analysis. Additionally, since Respondent did not have a CPA firm under contract, FSIGA’s recommendation was not reviewed by anyone with financial background before being transmitted to Petitioner. Petitioner responded to the October 28, 2002, directive from Respondent by filing a petition requesting a formal administrative hearing. Petitioner failed to file financial statements with FSIGA within four months following the end of its 2000 and 2001 fiscal years. Petitioner’s failure to timely file financial reports for 2000 and 2001 was due to the fact that it was in default on certain loan covenants and was engaged in negotiations with its lenders. In 1999 and 2000, Petitioner incurred additional long-term debt to finance the purchase of a new fleet of trucks. Petitioner’s creditors had exercised their right for accelerated payment of the outstanding loan balances, which by the end of 2001, was approximately $205 million. In 2001 and 2002, Petitioner entered into negotiations with its creditors to amend and restate its loan agreements. In 2002, Petitioner implemented a business plan calling for the sale of non-core assets, reduction of long-term debt, and transition from purchasing to leasing truck tractors. In July 2002, Petitioner entered into amended and restated loan agreements with its creditors. In order to secure the amended and restated loan agreements, Petitioner was required to pay increased interest, pledge substantially all of its property to secure the loans, pay the lenders $3.3 million, provide certain lenders with warrants to acquire an equity interest in Petitioner under certain conditions and agree to restrictions on how it could use cash generated by its operations and asset sales. Petitioner timely made all principal and interest payments due pursuant to the restated credit agreement and maintained compliance with all required financial ratios and standards. Furthermore, Petitioner continued to timely pay all claims for current and estimated future claims under its workers’ compensation system. Following execution of the amended and restated loan agreements, Petitioner’s auditors prepared the financial statements of 2001, which Petitioner then filed with FSIGA. Separate audited financial statements for 2000 were never filed with FSIGA, although prior-year financial results were shown (without footnotes) on the audited 2001 financial statements. With respect to liquidity, Petitioner’s financial statements showed a current ratio (current assets divided by current liabilities) of 1.41 at December 28, 2001. It did not disclose that Petitioner had any available funds under its revolving credit line as of December 28, 2001. Although Petitioner’s current ratio was acceptable, further analysis raised serious concern regarding Petitioner’s financial strength. With respect to Petitioner’s capital structure, the financial statement review showed that Petitioner’s total liabilities-to-book-equity ratio deteriorated from 4.91 at December 1999 to 30.46 at December 28, 2001. This deterioration reasonably raised concern because Petitioner became much more heavily leveraged from 1999 to 2001, relying much more heavily on debt to fund its operations. FSIGA concluded, Petitioner’s financial statement showed a "very weak capital structure." The impact of the increasing reliance on debt was marked by the end of 2001, when the financial statements showed that Petitioner was in default of its debt covenants at December 28, 2001. To address its defaults, Petitioner entered into an agreement to restructure its debt by which the creditors waived the defaults in return for imposing additional restrictions on Petitioner as described in paragraph 20 above. Although Petitioner maintained a net worth of $11.1 million at the end of 2001, Petitioner’s net worth at the end of 2001 was significantly lower than its net worth of $74.8 million at the end of 2000. In addition, the financial statement review showed that Petitioner had incurred net losses of $24.2 million, $39.5 million, and $5.7 million for the years 2001, 2000, and 1999, respectively. These losses were substantial and raised significant concerns about Petitioner’s financial strength. The 2002 financial review of Petitioner also showed a substantial decline in Petitioner’s cash flow from operations, from positive $32.6 million for 1999 to negative $2.1 million for 2001. This meant that in 2001, Petitioner was spending more cash in its operating activities than it was collecting. At the time FSIGA made its recommendation to Respondent, neither FSIGA nor Respondent had current information from Petitioner regarding the amount of Petitioner’s net outstanding liability for workers’ compensation claims in Florida. This is because Petitioner failed to file the Form SI-20 report that had been due on August 31, 2002. From October 2002 until December 14, 2004, FSIGA and Respondent did not have accurate information in regard to the amount of Petitioner’s outstanding liability for workers’ compensation claims in Florida, because Petitioner did not file its required Forms SI-17 and SI-20 reports or provide an actuarial study. At the final hearing, Petitioner did not present evidence disputing the reasonableness of FSIGA’s 2002 assessment of Petitioner’s financial statements or of FSIGA’s conclusions based thereon regarding Petitioner’s lack of financial strength in 2002. Based on FSIGA’s analysis of Petitioner’s 2001 financial statements and the financial statements for the two preceding years, FSIGA reasonably concluded that Petitioner had not demonstrated that it had the financial strength to ensure payment of current and future workers’ compensation claims. Based on the information then available to it, FSIGA made the correct recommendation to Respondent. There was no clear and convincing evidence available to Respondent that demonstrates FSIGA's recommendation was erroneous, instead, the available evidence supports FSIGA’s recommendation. Accordingly, Respondent’s direction to Petitioner to provide an actuarial report and post additional security was reasonable and appropriate. Continuing Financial Review of Petitioner After 2002. In November 2002, Petitioner challenged Respondent’s determination and requested a formal administrative hearing. Petitioner requested that Respondent hold the petition in abeyance. The request was granted, and the petition was not filed with DOAH until July 9, 2004. During this period, Respondent re-examined Petitioner’s financial strength. Following its business plan, on January 16, 2004, Petitioner refinanced its debt. While there was conflicting testimony regarding whether the actual interest on the refinanced debt was lower than on the debt it replaced, it was undisputed that $30 million of the refinanced debt was carrying an interest rate of 19 percent. This is a higher rate than the nine-percent and 11-percent interest applicable to the earlier debt. It is undisputed that substantially all of Petitioner’s property is pledged to secure the 2004 refinanced indebtedness, and there continues to be restrictions on Petitioner’s use of cash generated by its operations. However, the 19-percent interest on a portion of the January 2004 refinancing has now caused Petitioner to go into the lending market to attempt to refinance its debt once again. Nevertheless, the refinancing of its long-term debt has reduced its financing costs. Since Respondent’s 2002 request that Petitioner provide an actuarial report and post an additional security deposit, FSIGA has reviewed Petitioner’s audited financial statements for the years ended December 27, 2002, and December 26, 2003, as well as Petitioner’s unaudited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004. The financial information received from Petitioner since the 2002 review has not resulted in FSIGA changing its 2002 recommendations. Petitioner’s 2002, 2003, and 2004 financial statements revealed that Petitioner’s net worth had fallen below the required $1 million in each of those three years. The 2002 and 2003 financial statements also show that Petitioner continued to experience net losses. Petitioner sustained a net loss of $12.1 million for the year ended December 27, 2002, and a net loss of $9.9 million for the year ended December 26, 2003. Petitioner’s cash flow statement shows a $4.8 million decrease in cash in 2002 and a $2 million decrease in cash in 2003. Petitioner’s 2004 unaudited financial statements indicate net income of $4.1 million for 2004. However, because the 2004 financial statements are unaudited, whether adjustments may be necessary following the audit are unknown at this time. Financial statements prepared without footnotes are not prepared in accordance with GAAP. Even if the unaudited results are confirmed in audited financial statements, 2004 would be the first year that Petitioner has recognized net income since 1998, following a five-year string of annual losses totaling $90 million. Petitioner’s Financial Status Evidenced at Final Hearing At the final hearing, to demonstrate that it had the financial strength necessary to ensure the timely payment of current and future workers’ compensation claims, Petitioner presented testimony of its expert witness, Lawrence Hirsh, C.P.A. He posited that Petitioner's financial strength should be measured by determining its ability to generate cash flow through a calculation of its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). EBITDA is a measure commonly used by financial institutions to evaluate the ability of a company to generate cash flows and in determining whether to extend credit or to make investments. Petitioner’s lenders evaluated its EBITDA before deciding to refinance its credit facility in 2002 and to refinance its long-term debt in 2004. However, EBITDA is not a calculation provided for under GAAP. GAAP provides a method for determining cash flows and that method is used in preparing the portion of a GAAP- compliant financial statement called the "Statement of Cash Flows." Evidence presented by Respondent demonstrated that EBITDA has many limitations and is not a good proxy for cash flow. Application of EBITDA to Petitioner’s known financial performance in the past consistently overstates Petitioner’s ability to generate cash flow from operations. In every year from 1999 through 2003, Petitioner’s cash flow from operations, as shown on Petitioner’s cash flow statement that was prepared in accordance with GAAP, was significantly lower than the amount calculated for EBITDA by Hirsh: Year Petitioner's Cash Flow From Operations as Shown on GAAP-Compliant Cash Flow Statement EBITDA 1999 $32.6 million $61.1 million 2000 $344,000 $21.2 million 2001 ($2.1 million) $40.3 million 2002 $11.9 million $54.8 million 2003 $12.3 million $42.3 million Petitioner's unaudited 2004 cash flow statement showed $18.1 million in cash flow from operations. This is significantly lower than the $52.9 million in EBITDA calculated for 2004. Similarly, each year from 1999 to 2003, Hirsh's EBITDA's calculation grossly exceeds Petitioner's net loss as shown on its financial statements that were prepared in accordance with GAAP: Petitioner's Cash Flow From Operations as Year Shown on GAAP-Compliant Cash Flow Statement EBITDA 1999 (5.7 million) $61.1 million 2000 ($39.5 million) $21.2 million 2001 ($24.2 million) $40.3 million 2002 ($12.1 million) $54.8 million 2003 ($9.9 million) $42.3 million EBITDA is also misleading because it includes gain from the sale of assets. To the extent that Petitioner is selling its operating assets, such as trucks, Petitioner will have to expend cash to replace the assets, either by lease or purchase. To the extent that Petitioner is selling non-core assets, such as its unused real property, Petitioner cannot continue this practice indefinitely. Petitioner will soon run out of assets to sell. Therefore, cash generated from the sale of operating assets and non-core assets should not be considered in determining Petitioner's ability to generate cash from operating activities. Petitioner sought to bolster its evidence of its financial strength through testimony that it had received a credit rating in November 2003 from Standard & Poor's of B-plus. However, a B-rating is not an investment grade rating. It means that while a company currently has the capacity to meet its debt obligations, adverse business, financial, or economic conditions likely will impair the obligor's capacity or willingness to meet its financial commitment on the obligations in the future. In addition, Petitioner received a lower credit rating of B-3 from Moody's Investment Services. A B-3 rating from Moody's Investment Services is equivalent to a B minus rating from Standard & Poor's. The Standard & Poor's and Moody's credit ratings do not effectively demonstrate that Petitioner has the financial strength necessary to ensure the payment of current and future workers' compensation claims. Respondent's expert witness, Dr. Sondhi, disputed Petitioner's calculation of its EBITDA interest coverage ratio because Petitioner's calculation was based on interest paid as opposed to interest expense, and it failed to adjust for non-recurring items. Petitioner's interest expense is greater than the interest paid partly because Petitioner's loan agreement provides that a portion of the interest payments will accrue monthly with payments deferred until the final prepayment date or other principal payment milestone dates. Petitioner's calculation of the EBITDA interest coverage ratio was not performed in accordance with Standard & Poor's formula for determining the EBITDA interest coverage ratio. Even if the calculation of EBITDA interest coverage ratio was an appropriate measure of Petitioner's financial strength, the formula used by Petitioner to calculate the ratio overstates the results and shows greater financial strength than would be shown if the Standard & Poor's formula had been used. For the reasons noted above, Petitioner's EBITDA calculations are rejected as an inappropriate, overstated method to assess whether a company has the financial strength necessary to ensure the payment of current and future workers' compensation claims. Petitioner also argued that it had the required financial strength because it has paid all workers' compensation claims to-date and because, at the end of 2004, it had a cash balance of $26.6 million in the bank. The ability to currently pay workers' compensation claims does not demonstrate the financial strength to ensure the payment of workers' compensation claims in the future. Current capacity to pay is only part of the statutory standard, which is a risk-based standard requiring a company to ensure payment into the future because of the long period of time that workers' compensation claim payments continue. Likewise, having cash in the bank in the amount of $26.6 million at the end of 2004, does not demonstrate the required financial strength. Current cash balance is not an indicator, by itself, of financial strength to ensure payment in the future. Given Petitioner's extensive operating expenses, $26.6 million represents a very small amount of operating expenses. Petitioner’s consolidated balance sheets list its assets at historical or book cost, the cost at which those assets were purchased, and not at their current fair market value. Petitioner argues that adjusting the book values of assets to current market value would provide the most accurate assessment of Petitioner's net worth. To demonstrate that it has maintained a net worth of $1 million, Petitioner presented testimony that when determining net worth, the fair market value of its assets should be considered in place of the book value of its assets that is reflected on its balance sheet. However, GAAP does not permit the value of assets to be shown at fair market value and instead, requires that assets be shown at book value. Even if GAAP permitted the use of fair market value of assets to be used on a balance sheet, Petitioner did not offer any admissible evidence to prove the current fair market value of its assets for 2002, 2003, and 2004. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether the use of the current fair market value of assets would result in Petitioner's financial statements showing a net worth at all times of at least $1 million. Respondent has interpreted the term "net worth," as it is used in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-5.106, to mean the total assets of a company as reflected on the balance sheet, minus the total liabilities of the company as reflected on the balance sheet. Respondent's interpretation of the term "net worth" is a reasonable interpretation, consistent with the interpretation given to the term by accountants and financial analysts. The more credible expert testimony is that net worth appears on the balance sheet as stockholders' or shareholders' equity. Based on the above interpretation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-5.106, for each year from 2002 through 2004, Petitioner has failed to maintain a net worth of at least $1 million. The preponderance of evidence demonstrates Petitioner's net worth was negative $976,000, and negative $10.8 million for the years ended December 27, 2002, and December 26, 2003, respectively. In addition, Petitioner's unaudited financial statements for 2004 show that Petitioner maintained a negative net worth of $6.7 million as of December 31, 2004. Although Petitioner's financial condition has strengthened significantly from year end 2001 to year end 2004, based on the evidence, Petitioner does not now have the financial strength necessary to ensure payment of current and future workers' compensation claims, nor has Petitioner maintained a net worth of at least $1 million. Therefore, an additional security deposit is required for Petitioner to remain qualified as a self-insurer. In May 2002, Thomas Lowe was employed by Petitioner as its vice-president in charge of Risk Management. Lowe instituted a number of risk management practices which have significantly reduced the number and costs of Petitioner's workers' compensation claims. In 2001, Petitioner's workers' compensation claims were adjusted by three separate third-party administrators (TPAs), resulting in three overlapping data bases of claims information. Petitioner was unable to reconcile this overlapping claims information and, consequently, was unable to accurately determine the amount of its workers' compensation reserves for 2001. As a result of its inability to determine its workers' compensation reserves in 2001, Petitioner did not submit the required SI-17 and SI-20 forms to FSIGA in 2002 and 2003. Petitioner informed FSIGA of the difficulty it was having in reconciling its claims data for 2001 and paid the required penalties for its inability to timely submit Forms SI-17 and SI-20 in 2002 and 2003. Failure to submit these forms did not affect Petitioner's ability to make timely payments of all current and estimated future workers' compensation claims. In 2004, Petitioner submitted Forms SI-17 to FSIGA reflecting incurred workers' compensation losses for calendar years 2002 and 2003. On December 14, 2004, Petitioner submitted Form SI-20 to FSIGA, reflecting that the present value of its estimated loss reserves was $6,894,776.00. Anthony Gripps, Sr., an independent actuary who is a member of the American Academy of Actuaries, reviewed Petitioner's workers' compensation claims data pursuant to Respondent's October 28, 2002, directive. Grippa issued two reports, one dated December 1, 2004, and the other dated December 15, 2004. Grippa concluded that the present value of Petitioner's workers' compensation loss reserves as of September 30, 2004, was $6,831,175.00. The parties stipulated to Grippa's finding that the amount of Petitioner's workers' compensation loss reserves as of September 20, 2004, was $6,831,175.00. Petitioner's financial statements for 2004 had not been audited as of the final hearing, but were received into evidence in unaudited form. There was no evidence presented that Petitioner's 2004 financial statements do not accurately represent its financial performance in 2004 and its financial condition as of December 31, 2004. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-5.101(4) does not require Petitioner to submit audited financial statements as it has been self-insured since prior to January 1, 1997. Petitioner timely supplied Respondent with unaudited financial statements at least annually as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-5.101(4). Petitioner currently has a qualified security deposit of $2,500,000.00 deposited with FSIGA. In 2002, FSIGA recommended that in light of Petitioner's "significant net losses and very weak capital structure," Petitioner's security deposit should be increased to 150 percent of the actuarially determined loss reserves. Upon consideration of all of Petitioner's financial statements from 1999 through 2004, FSIGA's recommendation should be followed. Petitioner's actuarially determined loss reserves for all current and estimated future workers' compensation claims are $6,831,175.00. One hundred and fifty percent of the actuarially determined loss reserves of $6,831,175 equals $10,246,762.50. Petitioner presented no evidence of a different amount of security deposit increase that would be sufficient assuming one were to find that Petitioner lacks the financial strength to ensure payment of future workers' compensation claims or that Petitioner has failed to maintain a net worth of at least $1 million.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The chief financial officer issue a final order determining that: (i) Petitioner does not have the financial strength to ensure the timely payment of all current and future workers' compensation claims; and (ii) Petitioner has failed to maintain a net worth of at least $1 million; and Because Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements to continue self-insuring, the final order should require Petitioner to post an additional security deposit in the amount of $7,746,762.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 June, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, David McQuay, Jr., committed the violations alleged in a four-count Amended Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy, on February 6, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged with the duty to regulate the practice of certified public accountants in Florida and to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165, and Chapters 120, 455, and 473, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to the allegations of the Complaint, Respondent David McQuay, Jr., has been licensed in Florida as a certified public accountant. Mr. McQuay's license number is R 1736, and his address of record is 110 North Lincoln Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33609-2908. Thomas Reilly, an expert in public accounting and auditing, reviewed an audit that Mr. McQuay performed for the Mid-Florida Center, a non-profit organization, for the financial year ending September 30, 2002. The audit was completed on July 18, 2003. Mr. Reilly prepared a report of his findings, dated September 5, 2005. He filed a subsequent report dated June 25, 2007, to include copies of various accounting standards and reference materials that were cited in the original report. In preparing his original report, Mr. Reilly met with Mr. McQuay and reviewed Mr. McQuay's complete set of working papers. Mr. Reilly testified that he billed the Department $3,444.00 for his services. No billing statements, invoices, or other documents were entered into evidence to support the amount of Mr. Reilly's fee. No expert testimony was offered to establish the reasonableness of the fee. As indicated in the Preliminary Statement above, Mr. Reilly identified four issues relating to the financial statements. First, Mr. Reilly found that the audit did not include certain statements that are required by government auditing standards. The "Yellow Book" contains the authoritative auditing standards issued by the federal Governmental Accountability Office ("GAO"). Amendment No. 2 to the auditing standards, adopted in July 1999, requires that certain language be included in the auditor's report on the financial statement. In particular, Section 5.16.1 of Amendment No. 2 provides: When auditors report separately (including separate reports bound in the same document) on compliance with laws and regulations and internal control over financial reporting, the report on the financial statements should also state that they are issuing those additional reports. The report on the financial statements should also state that the reports on compliance with laws and regulations and internal control over financial reporting are an integral part of a GAGAS [Generally Accepted Government Accounting Principles] audit, and, in considering the results of the audit, these reports should be read along with the auditor's report on the financial statements. Mr. McQuay's report on the financial statements did not contain a statement calling the reader's attention to the fact that a separate report on internal control and compliance is included elsewhere in the audit report. Mr. Reilly stated that the quoted language from the Yellow Book is mandatory, and that the GAO felt that the issue was important enough to call for the issuance of Amendment No. 2 to emphasize the revised mandate. In response, Mr. McQuay pointed to his reliance on a commercially produced practice guide that did not include the revised language of Amendment No. 2. While conceding the error, Mr. McQuay continued to contend that the practice guide's position was reasonable: that the statement is required only when the reports on compliance with laws and regulations and internal control over financial reporting are issued separately from the report on financial statements. In Mr. McQuay's case, the reports were issued under a single cover. Given that the express language of Amendment No. 2 references "separate reports bound in the same document," Mr. McQuay's response to the charge is insufficient. The Department has demonstrated that Mr. McQuay's audit report deviated from professional standards as to its failure to include the mandatory Yellow Book language. The deviation is ameliorated by the fact that all of the reports referenced in Amendment No. 2 were in fact contained in Mr. McQuay's audit report. There was no indication that Mr. McQuay's failure to include the mandatory statement was intended to mislead a reader of the audit report, or that his failure to comply with the strict language of Amendment No. 2 had any practical effect on the soundness of the audit report. The second allegation as to the financial statements is that necessary disclosures were missing in the notes to the financial statements. Mr. Reilly stated that the notes to the financial statements did not disclose the entity's capitalization policy for capital assets. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") Audit and Accounting Guide for Not-for-Profit Organizations requires disclosure of the entity's capitalization policy. Mr. Reilly testified that it is important for a reader of the audit to understand the dollar threshold at which the entity has decided to capitalize fixed assets, and that the professional standards require the disclosure in the audit report. In response, Mr. McQuay contended that the audit report did disclose the capitalization policy, citing to the following paragraph: Property donated to the Center is stated at its estimated fair market value. Depreciation expense is computed by use of the straight-line method of the estimated economic life of the respective assets. Maintenance and repairs are expensed as incurred. Extraordinary repairs that significantly extend the useful lives of the related assets are capitalized and depreciated over the assets' remaining economic useful life. This response is insufficient because the quoted language does not address the dollar threshold for capitalizing fixed assets, which is required under the standards for audits of nonprofit organizations. Mr. Reilly stated that the notes also failed to include a required statement as to lease commitments. Where the entity has operating leases that commit the entity for more than one year, professional standards require disclosure of the amount of the future commitments for each of the first five years subsequent to the date of the statement of financial position. Mr. McQuay's audit notes indicate that Mid-Florida Center had leases ranging as far as three years into the future, but do not disclose the amount of those lease commitments. Mr. McQuay responded that audit standards provide that immaterial items need not be disclosed, and that it was his professional judgment that the leases in question were not material. Mr. Reilly replied that the audit report gives the reader no basis for making an independent judgment as to the materiality of the leases. Mr. Reilly's view is more consistent with the specific standard regarding lease disclosure, though Mr. McQuay's exercise of independent professional judgment in this instance was not so unreasonable as to constitute a violation of professional standards. Mr. Reilly stated that the notes to the financial statements also omitted a statement of cash flows. However, Mr. McQuay's audit report properly identified this omission as a departure from generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"), rendering irrelevant any further discussion of the definition of cash equivalents. In summary, as to the second allegation, the evidence proved that Mr. McQuay violated the standards by failing to address the dollar threshold for capitalizing fixed assets, but did not prove any other violations of the disclosure requirements. The third allegation as to the financial statements was that the Statement of Activities and Statement of Functional Expenses should not contain captions of "Memorandum Only" for their "total" columns. Mr. Reilly contended that the "Memorandum Only" caption was inaccurate and misleading. Historically, the term "memorandum only" was used frequently on local government financial statements, where the auditor must give an opinion on different types of columns. Some of the columns were on a modified accrual basis and others on an accrual basis. Because these are two different bases of accounting, the "total" column was irrelevant. Mr. Reilly pointed out that the only time an auditor would use the "memorandum only" terminology as to a nonprofit organization's audit would be in presenting comparative financial statements, or where the prior year's audit included a summary total that was not in accordance with GAAP. In those situations, an auditor would use the "memorandum only" caption, as well as other disclosures, in the notice of the financial statements and the auditor's report. However, the Mid-Florida Center audit involved a single year's financial statement. Mr. Reilly opined that the total column on these financial statements was extremely significant, and that the "memorandum only" caption was extremely misleading. Mr. McQuay responded that the decision was made to use the "memorandum only" caption because this was the initial audit for Mid-Florida Center, and that the caption does not materially change any substantive aspect of the financial statement and is therefore not misleading. Mr. Reilly's position that the inclusion of the "memorandum only" caption was misleading and a violation of the standards cited in his report was correct, and Mr. McQuay's response was insufficient. The fourth allegation as to the financial statements was that donations of long-lived depreciable assets should not be reported as "Permanently Restricted Net Assets." Mr. Reilly conceded that this was a very complicated issue for which Mr. McQuay had "quite a bit of support." Mid-Florida Center purchased land and some equipment from the Highlands County School Board. The fair value of the property exceeded the price paid by Mid-Florida Center. Under GAAP, the difference between the price paid and the value would be recorded as a donated asset. The dollar amount recorded in the financial statement was $330,000, but there was no documentation showing how that number was arrived at, and no documentation showing the breakout between the land and the equipment. Mr. Reilly testified that when he looked at the fixed assets, he found a $280,000 item for land but could not be certain whether the item was part of this land or another piece of property referenced elsewhere in the notes. However, $330,000 was shown in a column called "permanently restricted." Mr. Reilly did not take issue with placing the land in that column. However, he thought that the equipment, i.e., the depreciable portion of that asset, should not be placed in the "permanently restricted" column. Mr. Reilly testified that an item such as an endowment fund is the only thing that should be placed in a "permanently restricted" column. Once an asset is placed in service and begins depreciating, it must be placed in the "unrestricted" column. In his response, Mr. McQuay referenced a reversionary clause in the purchase agreement, whereby if Mid-Florida Center gave up its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, the property would revert to the School Board. Mr. Reilly testified that this is a standard clause in government contracts, and is not a reason to classify the item as permanently or temporarily restricted. While his report took issue with the placement of depreciable assets in the "permanently restricted" column, Mr. Reilly conceded that the relevant Statement of Financial Accounting Standards is not crystal clear and that he used non- authoritative practice guides to arrive at his conclusion. Mr. Reilly believed that it was misleading to label equipment in operation as "permanently restricted," but also conceded that the notes to the financial statement fully disclosed the issue. Mr. McQuay insisted that his audit did distinguish between the land and equipment in the fixed assets and depreciation schedules. While his treatment of the item was subject to dispute, Mr. McQuay cannot be found to have violated professional standards as to this issue. As indicated in the Preliminary Statement above, Mr. Reilly identified six issues relating to the working papers. The first allegation is that there was no evidence of a reporting and disclosure checklist for not-for-profit organizations. Mr. Reilly opined that it is common practice to include such a checklist, and that Mr. McQuay should have used one on this audit because nonprofits have unique disclosure requirements and Mid-Florida Center was the only nonprofit organization that Mr. McQuay was auditing at the time. Mr. Reilly noted that failure to use a checklist does not violate a particular auditing standard, but could be held to violate the more general professional standard of due care. Mr. Reilly believed that due professional care mandates that a CPA use a checklist when auditing a nonprofit organization, and that a CPA "would be a fool" not to use one. A typical checklist is 70 pages long, and an accountant needs the list to jog his memory as to the many unique requirements of nonprofits. Mr. Reilly thought that Mr. McQuay might have avoided some of the cited deficiencies if he had used a checklist. Mr. McQuay responded that professional standards do not require the use of a checklist. Moreover, he asserted that his auditing software contains the functional equivalent of a disclosure checklist. While conceding that this was the only nonprofit he audited during the year in question, Mr. McQuay testified that he has been auditing nonprofit organizations for over 36 years and that his previous firm conducted 35 to 40 such audits annually. A checklist would be of no assistance out in the field, where the auditor is examining the client's working papers. Mr. McQuay stated that he does use a checklist when he is reviewing the work of a staff auditor, but that he did not need a checklist here because he was performing the audit himself. Even after hearing Mr. McQuay's response, Mr. Reilly continued to hold that it was foolish not to complete a disclosure checklist. The fact that Mr. McQuay was the only person working on the audit provided all the more reason for the use of a checklist. Accepting Mr. McQuay's testimony that his auditing software contained the equivalent of a checklist, it is found that his failure to use a paper checklist was not a violation of auditing standards or of due professional care. The second allegation relating to the working papers was a lack of audit evidence for fraud risk factors or planning materiality. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82 states that the auditor "should specifically assess the risk of material misstatement of the financial statements due to fraud and should consider that assessment in designing the audit procedures to be performed." The auditor should consider fraud risk factors relating to misstatements arising from fraudulent financial reporting and from misappropriation of assets. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 47 provides that the auditor should consider audit risk and materiality in planning the audit and designing auditing procedures and in evaluating whether the financial statements "taken as a whole are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles." Mr. Reilly found nothing in Mr. McQuay's working papers documenting that an assessment in conformance with Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82 was made, or that an audit risk and materiality assessment was made in accordance with Statement on Auditing Standards No. 47. Mr. McQuay responded that a separate section in his work papers dealt with fraud risk factors and materiality. He testified that his firm is careful in selecting clients and looks carefully at management capabilities and the risks involved in the representation. Mr. Reilly reviewed Mr. McQuay's response and concluded that it did not come close to meeting professional standards. As to this issue, it is found that Mr. McQuay did violate professional standards as to documentation, though he may well have performed the assessments in question. The third allegation relating to the working papers was that the management representation letter omitted the specific representations relative to the single audit and the referenced schedule of uncorrected misstatements in the management representation letter. The "single audit" is an Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") A-133 audit of an entity that has received $500,000 or more of Federal assistance for its operations. Mr. Reilly found the omissions in the management representation letter constituted a violation of professional standards. Mr. Reilly testified that the standards require that on every audit, the auditor obtain a management representation letter signed by the appropriate levels of management. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 85 contains the basic requirements for management representations. Mr. McQuay obtained a management representation letter from Mid-Florida Center in compliance with this basic requirement. However, because this was a single audit, additional representations were required in the management representation letter over and above those found in a generic audit. AICPA's Statement of Position 98-3, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Not-for-Profit Organizations Receiving Federal Awards," paragraph 6.68 requires the auditor conducting an OMB A-133 audit to obtain written representations from management about matters related to federal awards. Paragraph 6.69 of the same document lists 22 items for which the auditor should consider obtaining written representations in a single audit. Mr. Reilly testified that most of these items were applicable in this case, but that none of them were included in the Mid-Florida Center's management representation letter. In response, Mr. McQuay pointed to his engagement letter with the client. The engagement letter states that this would be an OMB A-133 audit, and that Mr. McQuay has explained to the client and the client has understood that management is responsible for compliance with the OMB A-133 audit requirements. Mr. McQuay did not think he needed to include the detailed representations of paragraph 6.69 when he already had an extensive engagement letter that covered these areas of management responsibility. Mr. Reilly replied that the engagement letter and the management representation letter are two entirely different things. The engagement letter spells out the scope of representation to the client at the outset of the engagement; completely different standards require the auditor to obtain written representations from management regarding elements spelled out in the standards, at the conclusion of the engagement. The engagement letter is irrelevant for purposes of the single audit's requirement that representations be obtained from management about matters related to federal awards. None of the specific statements referenced by Mr. McQuay in his engagement letter dealt with the specifics of federal awards. As to this issue, it is found that Mr. McQuay violated professional standards. The fourth allegation relating to the working papers was that no documentation was evident regarding a consideration of a going concern with the entity's financial position. Mr. Reilly testified that it was apparent from a glance at the financial statements that the entity had severe financial problems. It had an adverse current ratio, with assets of $33,000 and liabilities of $138,000, not considering the issue of liability for back pay owed to the executive director. Under Statement on Auditing Standards No. 59, an auditor has the responsibility to evaluate and document any causes for doubt about the continuing viability of the entity, and further to evaluate and document management's plans to turn around the entity. Mr. Reilly saw nothing that came close to meeting this standard. The only items of substance he found were a statement that the Mid-Florida Center was creating a new charter school and that fundraising activities were "ongoing." There were no specifics as to the charter school or the fundraising. Mr. Reilly found these statements "grossly inadequate" to comply with professional standards. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 59 includes specific items that an auditor should evaluate, such as management's specific plans to curb expenditures and increase revenue. Mr. McQuay supplied a document titled "Going Concern Evaluation," but the document provided no specifics as to the evaluation that was performed. Mr. McQuay responded that any startup organization such as the Mid-Florida Center will have poor current ratios. However, the entity had the management wherewithal to raise money and a committed, competent board of directors. The proposed charter school had already received funding for building renovation for the 2003-2004 school year. Mr. McQuay believed that his field work and evaluation of the management plans was sufficient to satisfy the standard. As to this issue, it is found that Mr. McQuay violated professional standards, at least insofar as he failed adequately to document his consideration of a going concern with the entity's financial position in accordance with Statement on Auditing Standards No. 59. The fifth allegation relating to the working papers was that the management representation letter addressed the $158,429 liability owed to the executive director, which was reversed off the books, but failed to justify the removal of the liability from the financial statements by specifically finalizing the matter. Mr. Reilly explained that, as of the balance sheet date, Mid-Florida Center owed several years' salary to its executive director, Dr. Arthur Cox, a significant liability that would make Mid-Florida's poor current ratio even worse. Mid-Florida removed the liability for Dr. Cox' salary from its books. Mr. Reilly did not have a problem with removing the salary, in the amount of $158,429 from the books, provided Mid-Florida had secured a separate, standalone confirmation from Dr. Cox that he was totally relinquishing any rights to those funds. However, the relinquishment issue was addressed in a management representation letter by way of what Mr. Reilly termed "squirrely wording." Rather than completely extinguish any rights Mr. Cox had to the salary, the Mid-Florida Center's board voted to change the liability from deferred compensation to amounts owed for future salary increases. Essentially, the board took the liability off the books at the present time, but left open the possibility of reinstating it when Mid-Florida Center's finances permitted it to pay Dr. Cox the amount he was owed. Mr. McQuay responded that the Form 990 for the year in question had been completed by another CPA and filed prior to his retention. Form 990 is the tax return for organizations exempt from income tax. The working trial balance prepared by the other CPA indicated that the liability for the back pay had been removed, and the Form 990 had been filed with the Internal Revenue Service without including the liability. In reconciling the Form 990 with the working trial balance for purposes of his audit, Mr. McQuay obtained the management representation letter referenced by Mr. Reilly. Mr. McQuay testified that he viewed the letter as firming up the matter that the previous CPA had dropped in his lap. Selvin McGahee, a member of the Mid-Florida Center's board of directors, testified that Dr. Cox founded the Mid- Florida Center, writing the initial grants that got the entity started. Dr. Cox' focus on providing services led him to forego some of the salary that was budgeted for his position, in order to spend the funds on other positions. Mr. McGahee testified that this situation persisted for a couple of years, with Dr. Cox supplementing the organization's revenues by not paying himself. The board ultimately decided to remove the back pay from its books, but had the intention of paying Dr. Cox his back salary if and when the organization generated sufficient unrestricted revenue to do so. As to this issue, it is found that that Mr. McQuay violated professional standards and departed from generally accepted accounting principles. Removing the liability for back salary payments to the executive director should have been accompanied by an unequivocal renunciation of those funds by the executive director. As matters were allowed to stand by Mr. McQuay, Mid-Florida Center's balance sheet was significantly improved in a manner that did not finalize the issue of the possible reinstatement of the back pay liability in the future. The sixth allegation as to the working papers was that, relative to compliance testing, the working papers contained evidence of testing only one monthly invoice/progress report. Mr. Reilly testified that the problem here was a lack of documentation. Though the auditor's judgment is paramount as to compliance testing, there are stated requirements that the auditor must meet. Because this was a single audit, OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement was used. This Circular lists fourteen specific items of testing, each of which should be addressed by the auditor at least to the point of indicating that the auditor has determined the item to be inapplicable to the audit at hand. Mr. Reilly testified that one of the specific issues he was called to investigate involved the lack of documentation regarding a grant that the Mid-Florida Center had obtained from the City of Bartow. The grant required the submission of a monthly invoice/progress report. Mr. Reilly could find evidence that Mr. McQuay had tested only one such invoice. Mr. Reilly conceded that it was "tough to say" what professional judgment demanded in this situation because he was not there when the audit was conducted. Mr. Reilly stated that he would probably have tested more than one invoice, but he could not say how many. The usual practice is to expand the testing if a problem is found with the first invoice. Mr. McQuay found no problems with the one invoice and progress report that he tested, and made the judgment that his examination was adequate. Mr. Reilly believed that, based on the overall scope of problems with Mid- Florida Center's documentation, Mr. Reilly concluded that the entity's invoices and progress reports were "lightly tested." As to this issue, it is found that Mr. McQuay did not violate professional standards or generally accepted accounting principles. Mr. Reilly testified that he might have conducted the compliance testing more strenuously than did Mr. McQuay, but he could not state that Mr. McQuay's actions were outside the boundaries of his professional judgment. Petitioner offered the testimony of Allan Nast, an expert in accounting and auditing. Mr. Nast reviewed the audit performed by Mr. McQuay, and also reviewed the reports prepared by Mr. Reilly. Mr. Nast agreed with Mr. Reilly's opinions in every particular. Mr. Nast's opinion has been considered and is respected by the undersigned, but does not change the findings of fact made above. Mr. Nast testified that he billed Department $1,365.00 for his services. No billing statements, invoices, or other documents were entered into evidence to support the amount of Mr. Nast's fee. No expert testimony was offered to establish the reasonableness of the fee. Mr. McQuay testified that he believes he has been singled out for disciplinary action based on business reasons. Mr. McQuay pointed out that the initial complaint in this matter was filed by a competitor who was also the father of an accountant whose firm Mr. McQuay had rejected for work in his role as director of quality assurance for WorkNet Pinellas, Inc. Mr. McQuay, an African-American, also testified as to incidents of racism as he pursued his career in a profession dominated by white men. The undersigned has considered this testimony by Mr. McQuay, but cannot find that these matters had any bearing on the merits of the allegations lodged by the Department in the Complaint after its thorough investigation of the initial complaint. In summary, as to the four allegations regarding the financial statements recited in the Preliminary Statement above, it was found that the first allegation as to missing statements in the audit was proven, though ameliorated by the fact that all of the reports referenced by the missing statements were included in the audit report. As to the second allegation as to missing disclosures, it was found that Mr. McQuay violated professional standards as to only one of several of the alleged omissions. As to the third allegation regarding the "Memorandum Only" statement in the "total" columns, it was found that Mr. McQuay violated the relevant standards. As to the fourth allegation regarding the categorization of long-lived depreciable assets, it was found that Mr. McQuay did not violate professional standards. There were six allegations regarding the working papers recited in the Preliminary Statement above. As to the first allegation regarding the disclosure checklist, it was found that Mr. McQuay did not violate auditing standards or the duty of professional care. As to the second allegation regarding lack of evidence for fraud risk factors or planning materiality, it was found that Mr. McQuay violated professional standards as to documenting his work, though he may have performed the assessments in question. As to the third allegation regarding omissions in the management representation letter, it was found that Mr. McQuay violated professional standards. As to the fourth allegation regarding going concern considerations, it was found that Mr. McQuay violated professional standards. As to the fifth allegation regarding removal of liabilities owed to the executive director, it was found that Mr. McQuay violated professional standards. As to the sixth allegation regarding the sufficiency of compliance testing, it was found that Mr. McQuay did not violate professional standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that A final order be entered finding that David McQuay, Jr. committed the violations alleged in Counts One, Two, and Four of the Amended Administrative Complaint and requiring Mr. McQuay to take sixteen hours of Continuing Professional Education beyond the regular requirement, including eight hours related to nonprofit organizations, and placing Mr. McQuay on probation for a period of two years. During the first year of probation, all audits (including financial statements and working papers) will be reviewed by a consultant selected by the Board, at Mr. McQuay's expense. If any audit is deemed deficient upon review by the Board, review of all audits will continue through the second year of Mr. McQuay's probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 27th day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric R. Hurst, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David McQuay, Jr. 110 North Lincoln Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609-2908 Veloria A. Kelly, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulations, Board of Accountancy 240 NW 76th Drive, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0793
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is University General Hospital, Inc. (hereinafter "UGHI"), the present license holder of University General Hospital (hereinafter "University Hospital"), a 140-bed general acute-care hospital located in Seminole, Florida. During calendar years 1989 and 1990 and until July 30, 1991, University Hospital operated as a division of Community Health Investment Corporation f/k/a/ CHS Management Corporation (hereinafter "CHIC"). On July 30, 1991, UGHI was incorporated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of CHIC and became the license holder of University Hospital. University Hospital's change in licensure on that date did not change its ownership, control, management, reporting, or operation. On or about December 2, 1991, UGHI timely filed Certificate of Need (hereinafter "CON") Application No. 6851 to convert 12 general acute-care beds to hospital-based skilled nursing beds. In a letter dated December 19, 1991, the Department (hereinafter "HRS") identified certain items of information omitted from UGHI's initial application (commonly referred to as an "Omissions Letter"), including, among other items, audited financial statements of the applicant. On or about January 15, 1992, UGHI timely filed its response to the Omissions Letter and included a document entitled "UNIVERSITY GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC. (A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF COMMUNITY HEALTH INVESTMENT CORPORATION) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1990 AND 1989 TOGETHER WITH REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS." In a letter dated January 28, 1992, HRS notified UGHI that its CON application was being administratively withdrawn from consideration for the sole reason that it did not contain audited financial statements of the applicant, University General Hospital, Inc. The purpose of audited financial statements from the standpoint of HRS' review of CON applications is that they provide HRS with a basis to determine the overall financial strength and financial position of the applicant and the applicant's ability to carry out the project being proposed. HRS requires that the financial statements be "of the applicant" because it looks to the source of funding and financial strength of the entity responsible for funding the project--the party submitting the CON application. The audited financial statements submitted by UGHI reflect the resources available to it for the CON project proposed in CON Application No. 6851 and are appropriate to demonstrate the financial strength of UGHI. The audited financial statements filed by UGHI contain financial documentation for years ending December 31, 1990 and 1989, as well as information through November 13, 1991. The issuance of audited financial statements for an entity incorporating a period of time before that entity's corporate existence (known as "reissuance") is a common practice in the accounting profession and, subject to the entity's ability to satisfy the specified prerequisites, is consistent with pronouncements and standards under generally accepted auditing standards (hereinafter "GAAS") and generally accepted accounting principles (hereinafter "GAAP"). The prerequisites for reissuance of an audited financial statement are adequate disclosure made in the notes of the financial statement and continuance of common ownership, control, management, reporting, and operation of the entity's activities. Prior to issuance of the audited financial statements for UGHI, Arthur Andersen & Co. conducted an extensive post-audit review of UGHI and concluded that the financial statements previously issued to University Hospital could be reissued as audited financial statements of UGHI. Had Arthur Andersen & Co. found that the previously-issued audited financial statements were misleading or that the requirements set forth in GAAS and GAAP were not satisfied, it would not have reissued the audited financial statements on behalf of UGHI. The audited financial statements submitted by UGHI to HRS constitute a valid document prepared in accordance with the pronouncements and standards under GAAS and GAAP. It is the policy of HRS that, if an entity has been in existence for less than one year, HRS will accept only a balance sheet audit as of the date of incorporation, or a short period audit from the date of incorporation through an undefined period of time. HRS' policy is not reflected in any of the statutes, rules, or HRS Manual provisions regarding audited financial statements, and HRS is not in the process of promulgating a rule regarding this policy. HRS' policy applies to all entities submitting CON applications that have been in existence for less than one year. Balance sheet and short period audits are not appropriate documents to assess an entity's financial condition. In many cases, HRS would prefer a reissued audited financial statement to a balance sheet audit in analyzing a CON application. In determining whether an applicant complies with Section 381.707(3), Florida Statutes, HRS will, with certain exceptions, look at whether the definition of "Audited Financial Statement" set forth in Rule 10-5.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, is met. HRS does not apply the definition of "Audited Financial Statement" set forth in Section 10-5.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, to applicants in existence for less than one year. The definition it applies to these entities is not set forth in any rule, statute, or HRS Manual provision. A balance sheet audit does not comply with the definition of "Audited Financial Statement" set forth in Rule 10-5.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. The audited financial statements filed by UGHI comply with the definition of "Audited Financial Statement" set forth in Rule 10-5.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.008(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code, identifies those audited financial statements satisfying the rule definition of "Audited Financial Statement" that HRS will not accept. HRS explains the exceptions set forth within Rule 10-5.008(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code, on the basis that these audited financial statements reflect financial documentation of an affiliate entity. The audited financial statements submitted by UGHI are not a combined audit, a consolidated audit, or an audit of a division, as prohibited under Rule 10-5.008(5)(g). From an accounting standpoint, the audited financial statements submitted by UGHI are those of UGHI. An accounting firm typically identifies the entity being audited on the title page of the audited financial statements and in the audit report and financial statements contained therein. The title page of, and audit report and financial statements in, the audited financial statements prepared by Arthur Andersen & Co. for UGHI all reflect that the entity being audited is UGHI. An accounting firm faces significant liability if the audited financial statements it prepares are found to be inaccurate or misleading. HRS does not dispute, and in fact agrees, that the audited financial statements prepared by Arthur Andersen & Co. for UGHI were correctly issued and are consistent with GAAS and GAAP.
Findings Of Fact Pabrey holds certificate number R-0211 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, Pabrey was subject to professional certification require- ments set forth in Chapter 473, Florida Statutes. The records of the Board reflect that Pabrey provided no evidence of the completion of any courses or studies that would give him credit towards the reestablishment of his professional competency in the period between January 1, 1974, and April 2, 1977. On October 15, 1976, Pabrey sat for an examination which was approved by the Board and given to practicing Certified Public Accountants pursuant to applicable law requiring reestablishment of professional competency. Pabrey received a score of 57 out of a possible score of 100. The established passing grade for the examination is 75. On December 31, 1976, Pabrey tendered his check to the Board in the amount of forty dollars ($40.00) as the required license fee. On May 13, 1977, the Board suspended Pabrey's certificate R-0211 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 check was returned to Pabrey by the Board on May 18, 1977, along with a copy of the Administrative Complaint and Order of Suspension. The questions to be answered in the uniform written professional examination administered to Pabrey 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. Pabrey challenges thirty-six of these one hundred questions on the grounds that the approved answers are incorrect and that the answer selected by Pabrey is the proper choice. The questions attacked by Pabrey are numbers 5, 7, 11, 15, 18, 19, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 42, 45, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, and 98. 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 thirty-six questions listed above are consistent with the demands of the Current Authoritative Literature. None are vague, misleading, unfair or improper. Each of Pabrey's answers is contrary to the provisions of the Current Authoritative Literature. Accordingly, the answers selected by Pabrey are not the best answers and were properly graded incorrect on his examination answer sheet.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondents Wardlaw and Etue were Certified Public Accountants licensed by the State of Florida. A Complaint for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief was filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which alleged, among other charges against other codefendants, that Wardlaw and Etue had engaged and, unless enjoined, would engage directly and indirectly in aiding and abetting others (notably A.T. Bliss & Co. and some of its principals), in acts, practices and a course of business that constituted and would constitute violations of Section 17(a) of the Federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 78m(a), Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13, 71 C.F.R. 240.13a-1 and 240.13a-13. Individual consents to Entry of Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction were entered by each Respondent by which they each consented to the entry of a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction against themselves. By a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction as to each Respondent, each Respondent was permanently restrained and enjoined in connection with the offer or sale of any securities issued by A. T. Bliss and Company, Inc. and from other certain wrongful acts. By an Order Instituting Proceedings and Accepting Resignation from Practice Before the Commission pursuant to Rule 2(e) [See 17 C.F.R. Section 2O1.2(e)] of the Commission's Rule of Practice, each Respondent was separately identified as a Certified Public Accountant who has appeared and practiced before the Securities and Exchange Commission, and based upon certain stated facts, the Commission stated in its separate Orders as to each Respondent the following: In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to institute proceedings and to impose a remedial sanction. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Proceedings pursuant to Rule 2(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice be and hereby are instituted against Stuart C. Wardlaw (James E. Etue). The resignation of Stuart C. Wardlaw (James E. Etue) from practicing before the Commission is hereby accepted. Stuart C. Wardlaw (James E. Etue) shall not, in his capacity as an independent public accountant, directly or indirectly perform any audit service or render any opinion concerning financial statements which he has reason to believe will be contained in any filing with the Commission or prepare financial statements which he has reason to believe will be included in filings with the Commission. (Emphasis supplied) The public accounting firm of Etue, Wardlaw, and Company, C.P.A., performed accounting services in connection with the issuance of audits of financial statements of A. T. Bliss and Company for the years 1979 and 1980. Respondents Etue and Wardlaw were each 50 percent shareholders of the certified public accounting firm, which was formed December 1, 1979. Etue was President and Wardlaw was Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer. Neither Wardlaw nor Etue had extensive experience in the field of auditing prior to formation of the firm, having only been licensed as certified public accountants since 1976. A. T. Bliss and Company (hereafter, Bliss) only became a public corporation in 1980. However, during the latter part of the calendar year 1979, Bliss entered into the business of manufacturing and distributing solar hot water heating systems. Sales were made to various investors, who financed the purchase through 15 and 30 year notes, plus a cash downpayment, with the notes receivable consisting of both recourse and nonrecourse long-term notes. The 1979 and 1980 audited financial statements prepared by Respondents recognized revenue on the accrual basis. It is the auditor's responsibility to determine whether the company issuing those statements has chosen a method of revenue recognition that complies with generally accepted accounting principles. The accrual method of revenue recognition is the generally accepted and preferred method in public accounting, unless the collectibility of the sales price is not reasonably assured. When collection is over an extended period and because of the terms of the transactions or other conditions there is no reasonable basis for estimating the degree of collectibility, the installment sales or cost recovery methods of revenue recognition may be used and are normally preferred. Bliss' revenue recognition policy in 1979 and 1980 recognized the sale at the time of executing the contract and receiving the cash down payment, with a recording of all costs of sales and establishing an allowance for doubtful collections. Petitioner contends that there was insufficient information gathered and sufficient information could not have been gathered by Wardlaw and Etue due to the lack of history of the relatively new company's (Bliss') collections and the length of the extended collection period (15 to 30 years) by which they could reasonably use the accrual method of revenue recognition instead of either the installment method or cost recovery method of revenue recognition, preferably the latter. Respondents contend that sufficient information was collected but not documented. By either assessment, it is clear that there was a violation of generally accepted accounting principles simply in the Respondents' failure to document. The greater weight of the credible expert testimony is accepted that the information gathered or "known" or "understood" by the Respondents concerning the collectibility of a few notes was both of insufficient quantity and quality so as to further offend generally accepted accounting principles. Further, the applicable accounting publications and pronouncements, particularly Accounting Principles Board Opinion 10, (APB 10) strongly suggest that if the collection of the receivables is not reasonably assured, the cost recovery or installment method of revenue recognition should be utilized. In making this finding of fact, the undersigned specifically rejects Respondents' suggestion that both the recourse and non-recourse notes had a high collectibility factor based on the present personal wealth of a small sampling of makers of these notes and based upon the assumption from a still smaller sampling that most solar unit purchasers would stay in for the long haul because they were investing for tax advantages. Equally unpersuasive is the Respondents' argument that because solar units may be attached to buildings and financed over a long period of time Respondents were entitled to utilize real estate sales accounting principles in their financial statements and accountants' reports, all without adequate documentation in their work papers. Based upon the absence of any collection information in the work papers, the 15-30 year collection periods and the fact that none of the notes had any lengthy collection period, those expert opinions that the installment method or cost recovery method of revenue recognition would have more appropriately presented the financial condition of the company in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice are accepted. Although Respondent Etue is correct that APB 10 is couched in permissive not mandatory language, it is significant that Respondents' C.P.A. expert, David Levy testified that the lack of documentation in Respondents' work papers precluded him from forming an opinion that the accrual method of revenue recognition fairly presented the financial position of Bliss and that Respondents' financial statements and accountants' reports do not comply with generally accepted accounting principles. Bliss' net income, if determined by either of the preferred methods (installment or cost recovery) rather than by the accrual method selected by Respondents would be materially lower than the amount reported in the 1979 and 1980 audited financial statements. See Finding of Fact 8, below. The significance of this variation could have been minimized or at least lessened by making a full and specific disclosure within the respective financial statements that the accrual method of revenue recognition had been utilized. This was not done by Respondents. Instead, the Summary of Significant Accounting Policies presented in the notes to the 1979 and 1980 financial statements did not disclose the revenue recognition policy utilized, except by a blanket statement that the financial statements (not necessarily the revenue recognition method of the client company) were presented on the accrual basis. Bliss' revenue recognition policy would materially affect its financial position, results of operations, and changes in financial position. Generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice would require the disclosure of such a significant accounting policy in light of the doubtfulness of collectibility of the long term notes. In making this finding of fact, the undersigned specifically rejects the Respondents' basically antithetical propositions advanced at hearing that either (1) anyone reading these financial statements is so sufficiently knowledgeable that he would automatically infer from the notes thereto that the accrual method of cost recovery had been utilized or (2) most persons reading the financial statements would not have the accounting background to appreciate the information if properly disclosed. Respondent Etue maintains that the fact that there is a difference in net income using the accrual method versus a cost recovery or installment sales method is immaterial or has little meaning as there is always a difference using the different methods and because depending upon the total volume of sales, there could be differences of billions of dollars. Even accepting this proposal and Respondent Etue's additional proposition that Certified Public Accountant Reilly's demonstrative figures utilized at hearing may have been slightly distorted, it still appears that concerning the revenue recognition policy alone, Bliss' 1979 financial statement showed close to a $735,000 net income rather than a $20,000-plus loss, as reflected by subsequent audits/restatements of that year. Showing close to a 2.3 million dollar net income rather than about $77,000 in the second year (again as reflected by subsequent audits/restatements) surely reflects at least that the Respondents' accounting decisions were major enough to warrant outside consultation or substantial research and documentation of decisions. Respondents failed to consult and failed to document substantial research and decision factors. These deviations of practice by Respondents are clearly material. There is no reference whatsoever in the 1979 work papers to the determination of the reasonableness of the 60 percent allowance for doubtful collections for notes receivable. Note Two (2) to the 1980 Bliss financial statements disclosed that 50 percent of the total notes receivable in 1980 constituted the allowance for doubtful collections for notes receivable. There is no documentation in the audit work papers to substantiate any audit review to determine the reasonableness of the allowance for doubtful collections for notes receivable except the following statement: "Reserve of 50 percent is reasonable Client has now a full year of experience and knows better the collectibility. Additionally, the ratio of nonrecourse to recourse has changed dramatically in 1980, with more people taking recourse loans. Accordingly, management felt there would be less losses than the 60 percent reserve in 1979 due to the shift. Although there are no dollar statistics to support the 50 percent reserve, it seems to be a reasonable conservative estimate." Considerable testimony was heard from each Respondent as to how this note came to be created. Recitation of most would be subordinate and unnecessary and contrary to the concept of ultimate findings of fact. However, the basic facts adduced are that it arose through collaboration of Wardlaw and Etue to at least some degree. See Finding of Fact 14, below. Despite all of the foregoing the uncertainty in determining a 50 percent allowance suggests strongly that Respondents as auditors merely accepted representations from Bliss' principals without adequate empirical testing and auditing of the judgment and further demonstrates the uncertainty of collections, thereby more strongly indicating that a different approach than the accrual method of revenue recognition should have been selected, because in the accrual method of revenue recognition, the sale is recognized at the time of the entry into a long term note and here, under the circumstances of the instant case, there was inadequate data to form a conclusion as to the collectibility of all monies due under the note. Pursuant to the most credible expert accountants' testimony, this failure in the audit with regard to the 50 percent reserve was a failure to comply with generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice and constituted a departure from generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards, but it also appears from the evidence as a whole to be at least partly attributable to Respondents' inexperience in auditing, which was alluded to earlier. The greater violation occurred by the Respondents' failure to recognize the impartiality required of them in certified public accounting practice and their willingness to impose, as it were, their C.P.A. "imprimatur" upon the Bliss financial statements by an opinion without any qualifying language (an unqualified opinion). See Finding of Fact 7, above. Pursuant to Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) provisions 169.105 and 165.109, receivables of the nature retained by Bliss, must be recorded at their present value. The discount resulting from the determination of the present value should be reported on the balance sheet as a direct deduction to the face amount of the note, or properly disclosed in the footnotes to the financial statements. There was no adjustment to present value for lower than prevailing interest rates in the 1979 financial statements, nor any disclosure in the footnotes to the financial statements beyond that previously discussed. The 1980 financial statement, disclosed in Note 2 that the 50 percent allowance for doubtful collections included both a provision for uncollectibility as well as a reduction in value due to a lower than prevailing interest rate. The footnote did not distinguish between the two and the total allowance was included in the operating expenses, when the greater weight of the credible expert witness testimony is that the adjustment to present value for lower than prevailing interest rates should have been made as a reduction of sales. The failure to separately disclose the discount and the reserve for doubtful accounts fails to conform with generally accepted accounting principles, specifically APB 21, which requires that the discount is to be made as a reduction of sales. The audit note disclosed that the entire 50 percent allowance was management's estimated allowance for doubtful collections and, after the fact, and without any supportable calculations, the 50 percent figure now included the adjustment in value due to a lower than prevailing interest rate. Proceeding as Respondents did resulted in a material misstatement of gross revenue and operating expenses for 1980, which fails to comply with generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice and which fails to conform to generally accepted accounting principles. Cost of sales were not presented separately in the 1979 and 1980 audited Bliss financial statements or auditors' notes thereto. Although there is expert testimony by Leo T. Hury, C.P.A., to the effect that failure to separately present cost of sales is a violation of the custom of accounting and not a violation of generally accepted accounting principles, Mr. Hury also felt it departed from generally accepted auditing standards. Moreover, APB 4 states that separate disclosure of the important components of the income statements, such as sales and other sources of revenue, including costs of sales, is presumed to make the financial statement more useful. The cost of sales as a separate item permits the reader of the financial statement to determine the gross profit on sales before other income items come into play. Under the circumstances of the instant case the best that can be said of this violation of "custom" is that it constituted only one of several components of a material misstatement of financial condition, which, if not an independent and specific departure from generally accepted and prevailing standards of public accounting practice, generally accepted accounting principles, and generally accepted auditing standards, was one component of such a departure. The 1979 and 1980 work papers associated with the Bliss audit do not document or justify Respondents' study of accounting policy issues in relation to the financial statements so as to accord with generally accepted auditing standards. In making this finding of fact, the undersigned specifically rejects Respondent Etue's proposal that sufficient competent evidential matter was obtained but not documented in the 1979 work papers while the 1980 work papers evidence compliance with generally accepted auditing standards. The proposal is rejected because the expert testimony is consistent that an accountant's "work papers" are to be a "catch all" of supporting documentation for not only the final figures reported but for his studies of accounting issues, judgment calls of accounting policies and principles, and his explanation of selected methodologies as well. Failure of the work papers to adequately reveal how these decisions were reached either indicates that the studies were not done, not documented, or the work papers were defectively maintained, any of which constitutes at least minimal noncompliance with generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice. The Respondents only minimally agree upon what separate responsibilities each had with regard to Bliss' account and financial statements. As might be expected, the elements of "control," "final authority," "sign-off authority," "final say," and "ultimate authority" were used by both Respondents with some considerable variation of meaning. Where there was agreement or only minor deviation, those portions of their respective evidence has been reconciled and accepted. However, each Respondent has a high stake in the outcome of these proceedings and where each characterized their respective responsibilities with regard to the Bliss account generally, and with regard to the 1979 and 1980 Bliss financial statements specifically, in diametrically different ways, greater reliance has been placed on the testimony of Allan Karp, the independent contract accountant who performed the 1980 field work. By any and all points of view, however, and for want of better legal terminology, it would appear that this was a situation that fluctuated from both to neither of the C.P.A. Respondents "minding the store." Respondent Wardlaw was the titular "partner in charge" of both the 1979 and 1980 Bliss audits. Respondent Etue had obtained the client initially and both he and Wardlaw initially met with the client. Prior to introducing Wardlaw to the Bliss principals Etue advised them that he, Etue, was on probation with the Board of Accountancy and Wardlaw would be in charge of the audit. Etue had performed two audits prior to the formation of the public accounting corporation that came under the review of the Florida Board of Accountancy and both of which led to the imposition of the discipline of probation in 1978 and 1981. 1/ Etue's reasons for Wardlaw taking charge of the audits were the language in his prior stipulation with the Board of Accountancy and because he believed he needed improvement in auditing. Petitioner desires that the inference be drawn from portions of each Respondent's testimony taken out of context that Etue concealed from Wardlaw that he, Etue, had done previous audits and represented that he, Etue, was precluded from doing Bliss' audits, and that by these misrepresentations Etue maneuvered Wardlaw into assuming the partner-in-charge responsibilities for the express purpose of avoiding oversight by the Board of Accountancy of the Bliss audits. However, the full context of the Respondents' respective testimony, the internal contradictions of Wardlaw's testimony, and the general vagueness of both Respondents' testimony do not support Petitioner's inference and preclude its acceptance. The custom of the profession of certified public accounting is that the "partner-in-charge" bears the ultimate responsibility of the conduct of a certified audit, including supervision of subordinates, final review of the auditor's work, and recommendations for corrections and changes. That is not precisely what occurred as between these Respondents. Although Wardlaw was responsible for the field work in the 1979 audit, one Sherry Carasik in Wardlaw's office nine miles from where Etue's office was located did the bulk of the work under his supervision, including preparation of the work papers and tests of transactions involved in the field work. Etue had no supervisory responsibility for the 1979 audit and did little if any of the actual field work. Etue did, at Wardlaw's request, however, prepare a list of items to be performed in the audit. This does not support the inference that Etue deferred to Wardlaw's superior auditing experience but quite the opposite, supports the inference that Etue was instructing Wardlaw or they were jointly deciding courses of action with Wardlaw deferring to Etue. Later, Etue also drafted the confirmation letters to be mailed to all investors and edited Wardlaw's letter to Bliss recommending changes to the footnote disclosure. Respondent Wardlaw testified that all major decisions concerning accounting policies re Bliss were discussed with Respondent Etue and concurrence and "joint decisions" were reached between them. Allan Karp materially confirms this testimony with regard to the 1980 audit procedure on the few occasions he was able to view the two Respondents together. It was Karp's view that Respondent Etue was his primary employer who supervised Karp in performance of the 1980 Bliss audit with Wardlaw dropping by periodically but mostly operating out of his separate office. Wardlaw's involvement in the 1980 audit was in the nature of a review partner performing a "cold review" after audit completion but before finalization. In 1980, Etue also assisted Karp with inventory as part of the field work, discussed with Karp his concerns about related parties, and helped Karp locate materials for a portion of the audit. The joint decisions with regard to assessing collectibility have been discussed supra.
