BILL ANALYSIS
SB 691
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 691 (Yee)
As Amended June 2, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :37-0
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS 11-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hayashi, Emmerson, |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, |
| |Conway, Eng, | |Ammiano, |
| |Hernandez, Nava, Niello, | |Charles Calderon, Coto, |
| |John A. Perez, Ruskin, | |Davis, Duvall, Fuentes, |
| |Smyth, Monning | |Hall, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |John A. Perez, Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, Audra |
| | | |Strickland, Torlakson, |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires an applicant for licensure as a certified
public accountant (CPA) to acknowledge that certain specified
pathways to licensure may not be substantially similar to other
states', exempts certain CPA licensees from having to prove
substantial equivalency with other states, as specified, and
requires the California Board of Accountancy (CBA) to verify and
report on these efforts. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires an applicant for a CPA license who is qualified by
the pathway requiring 48 semester units of education and two
years of qualifying experience, to acknowledge that a license
achieved via this pathway may not be reciprocal with other
states that require 150 semester units for licensure, as of
January 1, 2014.
2)Establishes California as substantially equivalent to every
state that has adopted 150 semester units or hours as the
educational pathway available for licensure in that state.
3)Prohibits any individual that has licensed in California prior
to January 1, 2014, and no individual licensed by the pathway
requiring 150 semester units of education and one year of
qualifying experience subsequent to January 1, 2014, from be
required to individually establish substantial equivalence in
SB 691
Page 2
any other state.
4)Requires the CBA to verify its educational equivalency for
licensure with each state, as specified, within existing
resources.
5)States that if CBA concludes that any state does not consider
the educational provisions, as specified, sufficient to
establish California as substantially equivalent, then CBA
shall immediately report that fact to the Legislature,
identify the states, summarize their reasons, and provide
options for California to establish substantial equivalency.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, costs associated with this legislation would be minor
and absorbable within existing resources.
COMMENTS : The Uniform Accountancy Act (UAA) is model
legislation developed by the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants (AICPA) and the National Association of State
Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) designed to provide a uniform
approach to regulation of the accounting profession.
The UAA declares that differing requirements for CPA
certification, reciprocity, temporary practice, and other
aspects of state accountancy legislation in the fifty-four
American licensing jurisdictions erect artificial barriers to
the interstate practice and mobility of CPAs. The UAA is an
attempt to eliminate such differences and barriers posed to the
effective practice of CPAs under modern conditions through a
standard of "substantial equivalency" (SE) that was added to the
UAA.
SE is a determination by NASBA that the education, examination
and experience requirements contained in the statutes and
administrative rules of another jurisdiction are comparable to
or exceed the education, examination and experience requirements
contained in the UAA. Under this concept, if a CPA is in good
standing from a state with CPA certification criteria similar to
the UAA, that CPA is qualified to practice in another state that
is not the CPA's principal place of business. A NASBA
Qualification Appraisal Service makes the determinations of
equivalency at the request of state boards, on a state-by-state
basis, as well as for individuals.
SB 691
Page 3
If the state of licensure does not meet the SE standard,
individual CPAs may demonstrate that they personally have
education, examination, and experience qualifications that are
comparable to or exceed those in the UAA.
Both AICPA and NASBA have strongly urged states to adopt the
entire UAA so as to promote its concept of uniformity and
substantial equivalency, but only a few states have actually
adopted all aspects of the UAA. There are, however,
approximately 49 jurisdictions, including California, who now
have education, examination, and experience requirements that
are considered by the NASBA as substantially equivalent to those
of the UAA.
However, the bill's sponsors contend that because California has
two paths to licensure, one of which does not conform with UAA,
it must terminate that paths to retain its SE status. This bill
attempts to clarify to individuals using the non-SE path to
licensure that they may not be eligible to practice in other
states after January 1, 2014.
Analysis Prepared by : Sarah Huchel / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301
FN: 0002121