ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

09F-2009.018-ACY · State Board of Accountancy · 2009-01-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 8, 2009 APPEARANCES: No one appeared for Heidi R. Brown; Assistant Attorney General Daniel Christl appeared for the Arizona State Board of Accountancy ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thomas Shedden _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT Heidi R. Brown (“Respondent”) is the holder of Certified Public Accountant Certificate No. 13133-E issued by the Arizona State Board of Accountancy (“Board”), which allows Respondent to practice as a certified public accountant in Arizona. Respondent is also the holder of Certified Public Accounting Firm Registration No. 2641-C for her firm, Heidi R. Brown, CPA, PC. Respondent’s Certificate was suspended effective December 1, 2008 because Respondent did not timely register and pay the required biennial renewal fee. See Exhibit 11 (letter dated December 1, 2008).

On November 21, 2008, the Arizona Department of Insurance issued a Complaint and Notice of Public Hearing setting this matter for hearing at 1:30 p.m. January 8, 2009. The Complaint alleges that Respondent did not provide written responses to two complaints filed against her by clients. Respondent did not appear at the scheduled time and the matter was convened in her absence at about 1:45 p.m. The Department presented the testimony of its compliance manager Ryan Edmonson and had 11 exhibits entered into evidence. On September 12, 2008, the Board received a complaint against Respondent from one of her clients. The complaint was referred to the Board’s Tax Practice Committee (“Committee”) for investigation and assigned file number 2009.018. The Board informed Respondent of the first complaint by certified letter sent to her home address of record. See Exhibit 3 (letter dated September 17, 2008); Exhibit 10 (Respondent’s renewal application dated November 20, 2006). The letter September 17th was unclaimed and the Board sent a second notice by both certified and regular mail. See Exhibit 4 (letter dated October 9, 2008). The certified letter dated October 9th was returned unclaimed, but the version sent by regular mail was not returned to the Board. Consequently, Mr. Edmonson surmised that the home address of record was current. The Board also attempted to inform Respondent of the first complaint by mailing letters to her business address of record by both certified and regular mail. See Exhibit 5 (letter dated October 10, 2008); Exhibit 10 (renewal application). Mr. Edmonson’s recollection was that both letters were returned to the Board. On September 30, 2008 the Board received a second complaint against Respondent from a different client. The second complaint was referred to the Committee for investigation and assigned file number 2009.025. The Board informed Respondent of the second complaint by certified letter sent to her home address of record. See Exhibit 8 (letter dated October 2, 2008). Respondent was required to file written responses to the complaints against her; each of the letters the Board sent to Respondent provided a reminder of this requirement and the consequences that could accrue for failing to comply. As of the hearing date, Respondent had not responded to either complaint. The Board requested that Respondent’s Certificate be revoked. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Board bears the burden of persuasion to show that that Respondent’s Certificate should be revoked. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2). The standard of proof is that of the preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119. A preponderance of the evidence is “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (6th ed. 1990). The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Board’s requests for written responses to the two complaints, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(15) and A.A.C. R4-1-455.03(F). Consequently, grounds exist for the Board to impose discipline. See A.R.S. § 32-742. Respondent did not appear, which is considered a factor in aggravation, and no evidence in mitigation was presented. Based on the proven violations of A.R.S. § 32-741, Ms. Brown’s Certificate and Firm Registration should be revoked.

RECOMMENDED ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Heidi R. Brown’s Certificate No. 13133-E and Firm Registration No. 2641-C are revoked.

Done this day, January 27, 2009

______________________________________ Thomas Shedden Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2009, to:

Monica L. Petersen State Board of Accountancy 100 N. 15th Ave Suite 165 Phoenix, Arizona 85007

By ___________________________ -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826