State Board Report

August 2007

NASBA’s Board of Directors at their July 27 meeting in New Mexico unanimously approved the revisions to the AICPA/NASBA Uniform Accountancy Act and the NASBA UAA Model Rules as presented by NASBA UAA Committee Chair Andrew DuBoff. Both revised documents can be found on NASBA’s Web site, The UAA Committee had reviewed all the comments received on both the statute and the rules at their May 24 meeting, and made a few adjustments as suggested, the largest being the addition of a definition of “home office,” as many favored.

The UAA (statute) revisions had also been approved on July 12, 2007 by the AICPA Board of Directors. Included in these revisions are: major changes to Section 23 on substantial equivalency, addition of a definition of “home office” in Section 3, changes to Section 7 clarifying when firm permits are required, and to Section 14 on unlawful acts stating when a permit is not needed.

Under the revisions, every substantially equivalent CPA automatically consents to the administrative jurisdiction of the state board whose rules might have been violated by that CPA while using practice privileges,” Noel Allen, legal counsel, told the NASBA Board. “Thus, if a CPA uses practice privileges in another state, the CPA is not only agreeing to abide by that state’s laws, but also to answer to charges before the state’s board of accountancy.

The changes to the Model Rules accomplish the following:

(1) Add important new definitions for “agreed upon procedure,” “audit” and “professional engagement.”

(2) Remove duplicative provisions (definitions of terms already defined in the UAA and procedural revisions that are already subject to state administrative procedure laws).

(3) Provide guidelines for ascertaining the lack of “good moral character.”

(4) Establish a uniform ethics continuing professional education requirement – four hours during the three-year period preceding renewal.

(5) Implement the compliance assurance requirements program as a means of allowing more transparency and state board oversight of peer review programs.

(6) Provide a model for explicit adoption of “applicable standards” and

(7) Implement the NASBA Model Code of Conduct.

UAA Committee Chair DuBoff (NJ) thanked all who contributed their comments on the exposure draft, the AICPA UAA Committee and staff, and the NASBA UAA Committee members, including: Robert N. Brooks (NC), Marcela E. Donadio (TX), Ellis M. Dunkum (VA), Michael R. Granen (CA), J. Dwight Hadley (NY), Thomas J. Mulligan (OH), Robert A. Pearson (MO), Laurie J. Tish (WA), Michael D. Weatherwax (CO) and Michael Weinshel (CT), legal counsel Noel Allen and staff liaison Louise Dratler Haberman. Keeping with the “evergreen” feature of the Uniform Accountancy Act and Model Rules, the NASBA UAA Committee is now asking the state boards and NASBA committees to submit suggestions for areas for review in the Model Rules and the Act, which may result in future revisions.

Related News

Full Issue