Bookmark and Share

State Board Report

February 2014

A revised definition of “attest” for the Uniform Accountancy Act and related changes were approved by the Board of Directors of the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy at their meeting on January 16, 2014. Before the changes are entered into the UAA, they will need to be approved by the Board of Directors of the American Institute of CPAs. The new definition of “attest” broadens it to include all services performed in accordance with the Statements on Standards for Attestation Engagements (“SSAEs”). This is accomplished by adding those services as a separate subsection in the definition, apart from the examinations of prospective financial information already covered in the definition. This minimizes changes required in other UAA provisions that govern individual and firm mobility. With this new definition, major amendments will not be needed as future developments occur in assurance standards or in marketplace demands for assurance services.

NASBA UAA Committee Chair Kenneth R. Odom (AL) reported that only a few comments had been received on the “attest” exposure draft and, taking those comments into consideration, the final language which the Board approved was the same as what had been contained in the exposure draft. Comment letters on the UAA Committee’s firm mobility proposal were coming in through the end of January. No Board action will be taken on that proposal until after the UAA Committee submits its final recommended language, which will not be until the Board’s April meeting.

“If the firm mobility proposal is brought back to the NASBA Board, the purpose will be to have language available for those states who want to embrace firm mobility,” NASBA Chair Carlos E. Johnson (OK) stated. “We are making this language available to get uniformity among the states. There will be no arm twisting from the leadership of NASBA or of the AICPA for states to adopt firm mobility,” he told the NASBA Board in January.

President Ken L. Bishop stated that NASBA staff would be available to assist individual State Boards in determining the impact of firm mobility on their jurisdiction. However, he did not want it to appear that NASBA was either persuading the state to either accept or reject the concept.

After some discussion, it was decided that the January 31 deadline for the firm mobility exposure draft’s comments did not need to be extended.

Related News

Full Issue