[cabfpub] EVG - Accounting Practitioner Jurisdiction
richard.smith at comodo.com
Mon Jan 14 13:40:31 UTC 2013
If I recall correctly from a past conversation with one of our attorneys, I believe that an attorney engaged private practice is indeed required to be a member of the bar in the state in which they are practicing, BUT if an attorney is hired by a company as an in-house counsel they do not necessarily have to be a member of the bar in that particular state. This conversation took place quite awhile ago and I could possibly be getting it wrong at this point, but that is my recollection. Perhaps one of the attorneys in the group can chime in and clarify this.
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 2:14 PM
To: Ryan A.Koski; public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] EVG - Accounting Practitioner Jurisdiction
Ryan, I have only one mild concern.
I know lawyer rules (not accounting rules), and there are limitations on the ability of a California lawyer to represent a Washington client without being a member of (or specially admitted to) the Washington Bar. (On the other hand, a Washington corporation with offices in California can clearly hire a California attorney to do corporate work). So the situation is not crystal clear, except that an attorney from a different state than the client has to be careful he or she is not engaged in the “unauthorized practice of law” in the client’s state.
I’m not sure if the rules are the same for CPAs, but I expect they are similar.
So maybe we modify the rule clarifying that where the Applicant (or its state of incorporation) and the CPA are located in different jurisdictions, the CPA can provide the letter so long as such an engagement is in compliance with the practice rules of both jurisdictions?
Don Sheehy might have some insight on this.
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan A.Koski
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:56 AM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabfpub] EVG - Accounting Practitioner Jurisdiction
The EV Guidelines seemingly have a conflict between the definition of Accounting Practitioner in Section 4 (Definitions), and the specific requirements for verifying the status of Accounting Practitioners in 11.10.2.(1).(A). The definition of Accounting Practitioner says (emphasis mine):
Accounting Practitioner: A certified public accountant, chartered accountant, or a person with an equivalent license within the country of the Applicant’s Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Registration or any jurisdiction where the Applicant maintains an office or physical facility; provided that an accounting standards body in the jurisdiction maintains full (not “suspended” or “associate”) membership status with the International Federation of Accountants.
However, 11.10.2.(1).(A) omits the notion that the Accounting Practitioner can be within the country of the Applicant's JOI:
(A) Status of Author: The CA MUST verify that the accountant letter is authored by an independent Accounting Practitioner retained by and representing the Applicant (or an in-house professional accountant employed by the Applicant) who is a certified public accountant, chartered accountant, or has an equivalent license within the Applicant’s Jurisdiction of Incorporation, Jurisdiction of Registration, or the jurisdiction where the Applicant maintains an office or physical facility. Verification of license MUST be through that jurisdiction’s member of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) or through the regulatory organization in that jurisdiction appropriate to contact when verifying an accountant’s license to practice in that jurisdiction.
This leads to a situation where an Accounting Practitioner that is licensed in California is ineligible to provide an opinion letter for an Applicant that is incorporated in Washington state. I do not believe that is the intention of this requirement, especially since we allow Accounting Practitioners from "any jurisdiction where the Applicant maintains an office or physical facility".
I made an attempt to revise 11.10.2.(1).(A). The intent is to remove the duplication of language that also exists in the definition of Accounting Practitioner and eliminate what I believe to be the unintended restriction described above. Please provide any comments on the following:
(A) Status of Author: The CA MUST verify that the accountant letter is authored by an Accounting Practitioner who is either independent (retained by and representing the Applicant) or an employee of the Applicant. Verification of license MUST be through the member organization or group of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) that represents the jurisdiction in which the Accounting Practitioner is licensed, or through the regulatory organization in that jurisdiction appropriate to contact when verifying an accountant’s license to practice in that jurisdiction.
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6391 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Public