Enforcement: Connecting the DotsMaria L. Caldwell, Esq. – Moderator

Panelists: Stacey L. Grooms, Esq., Randall A. Ross, CPA, Lisa Snyder, CPA, CGMA

©2015

ENFORCEMENT“Connecting The Dots”

MARI A L . CALDWELL , ESQ. , CHIEF L EGAL OFFICER & D IRECTOR OF COMPLI ANCE S ERVICES

STACEY L . GROOMS, ESQ. , R EGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER

R ANDALL ROSS, CPA, EXECUTIVE D IRECTOR, OKLAHOMA ACCOUNTANCY BOARD

L I SA S NYDER, CPA, CGMA, D IRECTOR, A I CPA PROFESS IONAL ETHICS D I V IS ION

Guiding Principlesof

EnforcementSTACEY L. GROOMS, ESQ., REGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER

©2015

’s Mission

Enhance the effectiveness and advance the common interests of

the Boards of Accountancy

4

Enforcement Resources Committee

Mission StatementPROMOTE EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, AND WHERE APPROPRIATE UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BY BOARDS OF ACCOUNTANCY

©2015

Enforcement Tools Created

Enforcement Resources GuideFederal Agencies SeriesInvestigator Training SeriesQuarterly Enforcement ReportsEnforcement NewslettersInvestigator/Expert Witness Portals

©2015

Guiding Principles of Enforcement

A distillation of Enforcement Resources Guide and the data collected by NASBA regarding how boards put enforcement efforts into action

©2015

Referrals & LeverageBoards are receiving more information on disciplinary matters through referrals from other boards, as well as referrals directly from state/federal agenciesRecent coordination efforts with the DOL have increased the referrals that are being sent to boardsDistribution of PTIN listings, EBP audit listing, Federal Clearinghouse listings, and Quarterly Enforcement Reports are notifying boards of actions by other agencies that may require enforcement action by their board“Guiding Principles” which are reflective of the enforcement process of most boards may provide boards with leverage to request more resources to improve their enforcement process

©2015

MobilityBoards should have confidence in the enforcement process across the nationBoards of the home jurisdiction and the mobility jurisdiction need to be equipped to protect their citizensCalifornia’s mobility law specifically requires the CBA to verify that allowing practice privileges to a CPA from a particular jurisdiction does not violate the CBA’s duty to protect the public

©2015

California (Code 5096.21)Verification of enforcement practices of other jurisdictions can be accomplished by:Determination of equivalency with a best practices

guideline created by NASBA; orBy individual evaluation by the CBA

©2015

Guiding Principles of Enforcement

Survey project began in September 2014 to determine what enforcement “looks like” among the boardsGuiding Principles were finalized May 2015 and adopted by the CBA for use in satisfying their mobility lawCommunications continue with boards to confirm that enforcement practices meet the objectives of the Guiding Principles

©2015

Improvement in Disciplinary Data

The California law requires that discipline be available on-line by a “flag” indicatorNASBA will work with boards that do not currently have information available on-line to create a feed for CPAverify/ALDThis step improves the disciplinary information that is available to other boards as well as to citizens in all jurisdictions, improving the consumer protection aspect of mobility

©2015

California’s Equivalency Evaluation Timeline

Jan 2016 – NASBA submits information to CBA on initial determination of SESeptember 2016 – NASBA submits information to CBA on final determinations of SE March 2017 – CBA reviews information to determine if non-SE jurisdictions should be removed from mobility in CAApril 2017 – NASBA continues to work with boards to achieve SE statusJuly 2017 – CBA initiates rulemaking to remove states from no notice, no fee mobility (rulemaking typically requires 12-18 months)

©2015

DOL Audit Quality StudyUpdate

STACEY L . GROOMS, ESQ. , REGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER

RANDALL ROSS, CPA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA ACCOUNTANCY BOARD

©2015

DOL EBSA Audit Quality Study

• Released 5/28/2015

• Reviewed 400 plan audits from 2011 Form 5500 filings

• Six strata using # of audits per firm

• Random sampled within each strata

• Analyzed licensing and peer review status as part of study

©2015

Key AQS Finding

Compliant or Minor

Findings (61%)

Major GAAS Deficiencies -Reject Form 5500 (39%)

©2015

Trend of AQS Audits with GAAS Deficiencies

23%19%

33%

39%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

1988 1997 2004 2014

Audits with GAAS Deficiencies

©2015

Audits Containing 5+ Major Deficiencies and Clean Peer Reports

Strata (Audits) Deficient Audits w/ 5+ Deficiencies and Clean Peer Review Report

1-2 35% (33)3-5 36% (34)

6-24 37% (35)25-99 22% (14)

100-749 4% (1)750+ 4% (1)

©2015

DOL AQS Recommendations –NASBA / State Board RelatedENFORCEMENT

• Work more closely with NASBA and State Boards

• Peer review◦ Refer audit firms without acceptable peer review to Boards of Accountancy

OUTREACH

• Work with NASBA / State Boards to encourage requirement of specific licensing requirements for EBP auditors

• Communicate results of AQS to all Boards of Accountancy stressing need to ensure only competent CPAs perform EBP audits

19

©2015

Where We Have Been…

Since 2005, DOL made 507 routine referrals

481 to the AICPA 89 to BOAs

Over 65% of referrals to AICPA conclude with issuance of confidential RCA Letter

©2015

DOL Audit Quality Referrals…

DOL has made 145 referrals

132 to the AICPA 13 to BOAs

Over 65% of referrals to AICPA conclude with issuance of confidential RCA Letter

©2015

Outcome of Previous Referral Process…DOL is concerned about the current system, but

BOAs need to be involved in ALL cases

The BOAs had no real insight as to the

magnitude of the number of deficient audits

©2015

What Boards Have Done…Actions Taken by Boards of Accountancy

Closed with Discipline (26%) In Progress (23%)No Record of Referral (19%) Closed with No Violation (10%)Closed with No Data Available (10%) Closed Due to Insufficient Evidence (5%)Closed with Compliance (4%) Lack of Jurisdiction (3%)Deceased Respondent (2%)

©2015

CPA Firms

Department of Labor

(DOL)

NASBAAICPA

Accountancy Boards

Collaborative Effort…

24

©2015

How to Improve Collaboration and Results…

Improve referral process to ensure the DOL referral information is sent to the appropriate board contact

All DOL referrals to be made to the Boards going forward

Use of Consents to allow sharing of investigative files with Boards and AICPA by DOL

Use of AICPA/BOA Cooperative Enforcement Process

AICPA to consider changes to Automatic Sanctioning Guidelines that are triggered upon Board action

25

AICPA/Board Cooperative

Enforcement ProjectLISA SNYDER, CPA, CGMA, DIRECTOR, AICPA PROFESSIONAL ETHICS DIVISION

©2015

Professional Ethics Division staffs the following committees:

Ethics Division Structure

Professional Ethics Executive Committee

IND/BHS Subcommittee TNS Subcommittee

Ethics Division consists of: 20 Technical Staff (1 Director, 4 senior managers); 7 Technical Standards (TNS) and 5 Independence/Behavioral

Standards (IND/BHS) Technical Managers; 3 Case Investigators 5 Support Staff

©2015

Conduct of an Investigation

•Initial review – information reviewed to determine if investigation warranted and respondent is a member

•If investigation warranted:•Opening letter (OL) to each respondent – inform of investigation and request-

• Practice information• In-depth questions, regarding alleged deficiencies and

resolution/remediation • Work papers, financial statements and other evidence• Confirm peer review notifications made and OL, including

complaint/referral, has been provided to firm peer review contact• Other information from respondent/complainant (as needed)• Gather and examine evidence

©2015

Conduct of an InvestigationInformation Considered

•Financial statements reviewed•Working papers reviewed, unless errors are admitted or evident in financial statements•Interrogatories may be posed, interview offered•Current practice information of respondent and firm:

• Practice composition• Experience in relevant area• Relevant CPE• States and status of license • Self remediation and correction of the error

•Results of peer review•Other investigations•Assess threat to public & profession

©2015

Disposition of DOL Investigations

•No further action/no further action with comments

•Failure to cooperate • Refer to Joint Trial Board (with charges of non-cooperation and a

recommendation of expulsion)

•(Apparent) Prima facie evidence of a violation

©2015

Disposition of DOL InvestigationsLetters of Required Corrective Actions (RCA)

Confidential, except:• The complainant is informed• Copy of the RCA goes to AICPA Peer Review Program

Directives may include:• Comply immediately with professional standards• Attest, where applicable• Directed CPE (targeted to violations and to other practice areas if CPE is deficient)• Pre-issuance review• Follow-up work product review• Accelerate peer review • Restricted from performing peer review, teaching & committee service• Join audit quality center• Notify firm’s peer review contact and managing partner

©2015

Disposition of InvestigationsSettlement Agreements

Terms of settlement agreement may include all remedial actions available in RCA, plus:

• Admonishment • Member rights affected

• Suspension (up to two years)• Expulsion

• Publication of the name of the respondent and possibly his/her firm–AICPA website, state society publication, WSJ

• State board is notified of disciplinary action

©2015

AICPA/Board of Accountancy Cooperative Enforcement

•AICPA/NASBA have joined together to promote program to state boards

•Apply to licensees who are AICPA and/or State CPA Society members• Working on approach for non-AICPA/Society members on cost allocation basis

•Focus on DOL & Gov’t audit cases• Areas where audit quality is at greatest risk• Would not extend to commercial & behavioral cases

•Win-win situation for all • Allows AICPA, NASBA and state boards to be proactive and demonstrate

commitment to audit quality issue • Provides efficiency since AICPA already performing investigation and has ample

resources

©2015

AICPA/Board of Accountancy Cooperative Enforcement

•AICPA would not perform investigation “on behalf of” Board• AICPA would share investigative files and conclusions with Board

•Board would defer its investigation until completion of AICPA investigation• If Board were to “open” investigation, licensee has right to defer AICPA investigation• Board would reach its own conclusions and determine sanctions

•State board would request consent letter from licensee◦ Board will defer its investigation due to pending AICPA investigation◦ Upon completion of AICPA investigation, Board will request AICPA provide copies of its

investigative files and conclusions◦ Board will commence its own investigation at that time and may take AICPA’s investigation,

findings and conclusions into consideration◦ Board will reach its own findings/conclusions and may request licensee provide additional info◦ Request licensee provide consent for AICPA to share its investigative files and conclusions with

Board

©2015

AICPA/Board of Accountancy Cooperative Enforcement

Examples of investigation material that would be sent to state board: Letter of required corrective action or settlement agreement Investigation summary with committee findings and conclusions If applicable, summary of interview with respondent, along with

respondent’s comments on the summary. Evidentiary matter considered by committee. Copy of opening letter Copy of letter of inquiry to the firm (if applicable) and copy of response

thereto Copies of financial statements and reports

©2015

QUESTIONS?