FINACT13F-2009.105-ACY.pdf

13F-2009.105-ACY · State Board of Accountancy · 2013-09-20

BEFORE THE ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY

In the Matter of Certified Public Accountant Certificate No. 2730-E ASBA File Nos.: Issued to: 2009.105 (Tom Hirsch) 2010.053 (Hirsch & Shah, CPA’s LLC); TOM HIRSCH, 2011.036 (Tom Hirsch); 2011.039 (Tom Hirsch); and and 2011.041 (Tom Hirsch)

Certified Public Accounting Firm OAH Docket No. 13F-2009.105-ACY Registration No. 2371-L Issued to: DECISION AND ORDER HIRSCH & SHAH, CPA’S LLC

This matter came before Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Office of Administrative Hearings on July 9, 2013, for the purpose of determining whether good cause exists for the Arizona State Board of Accountancy (“Board”) to discipline Tom Hirsch (“Mr. Hirsch”), certified public accountant (“CPA”), currently suspended and/or Hirsch & Shah, CPA’s LLC (“Hirsh & Shah” or “the firm”) certified public accounting firm certificate, currently suspended, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 32-701 et seq. and Arizona Administrative Codes (“A.A.C.”) R4-1- 101 et seq. Respondent, Tom Hirsch appeared on his own behalf and Respondent, Hirsch & Shah, CPA’s LLC appeared and was represented by Courtney Rose Radow, Esq., Gordon Silver. The Board appeared through its attorney, Seth T. Hargraves, Esq., Assistant Attorney General. On September 16, 2013, the Board reviewed the record in this matter including the hearing exhibits and the ALJ’s recommended Decision, dated August 12, 2013. Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Shah were both present at the Board’s meeting. Mr. Hargraves, the Board’s attorney, was present and requested that the Board consider the ALJ’s Findings

of Fact and the ALJ’s Conclusions of Law. Mr. Hargraves requested that the Board

accept, reject or modify the ALJ’s Recommended Order. The Board voted to adopt the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and the ALJ’s Conclusions of Law and voted to accept the ALJ’s Recommended Order. Based on the ALJ’s Recommended Decision, the administrative record in this matter and the Board meeting, the Board issues the following Order: FINDINGS OF FACT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE 1. The Arizona State Board of Accountancy (“the Board”) issued Certified Public Accountant Certificate No. 2730-E to Tom Hirsh. This certificate enabled Mr. Hirsch to use the designation for a certified public accountant (“CPA”) in his transactions in the State of Arizona. 2. The Board issued Certified Public Accounting Firm Registration No. 2371-L to Hirsch & Shah, CPA’s LLC (“Hirsch & Shah” or “the firm”). Mr. Hirsh owns 1% and his partner, Harish P. Shah, owns the remaining 99% of Hirsh & Shah. Mr. Shah also holds a Board-issued CPA certificate. 3. On or about July 14, 2009, the Board received information that Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Shah were under investigation by the Arizona Corporation Commission’s Securities Division for allegedly engaging in acts, practices, and transactions that violated the Securities Act of Arizona. The Board also learned that on or about July 28, 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Shah in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona Case No. CV09-1560-PHX-SRB for similar alleged misconduct. The complaint in Case No. CV09-1560-PHX-SRB charged that Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Shah had committed securities fraud by making false and misleading statements about the safety and performance of investments in a mortgage lending scheme that attracted hundreds of investors. The Board subsequently received additional complaints against Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Shah from some of the individual investors and commenced its own investigation. 1 4. On or about April 12, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona entered a final order in Case No. CV09-1560-PHX-SRB against Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Finding of Facts Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 are based on ¶ 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 of the Interim Consent

Shah, finding that they had committed fraud in the offer or sale of securities and fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of securities in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a) and U.S.C. § 78j(b) (“the final order”). On or about April 27, 2011, the Court issued a final judgment permanently restraining and enjoining Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Shah from violating the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“the judgment”). 5. Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Shah appealed the final judgment in Case No. CV09-1560- PHX-SRB to the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. 6. On or about November 21, 2011, the Board entered an Interim Consent Agreement (for Suspension of CPA Certificates and Firm Registration Pending Resolution of Civil Appeal) (“the Interim Consent Agreement”). Although Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Shaw specifically denied any wrongdoing in the Interim Consent Agreement, they agreed that the April 12, 2011 final order and April 27, 2011 judgment in Case No. CV09-1560-PHX-SRB, if proven at a hearing, would constitute grounds to impose disciplinary action pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(7) and (8). In the Interim Consent Agreement, Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Shah agreed that their CPA certificates and firm registration would be suspended for a period of up to two years while they appealed the April 12, 2011 final order and April 27, 2011 judgment in Case No. CV09-1560- PHXSRB. 7. The Interim Consent Agreement required Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Shah to submit biennial renewals of their CPA certificates, to complete continuing professional education, to pay all applicable fees, “and [to] otherwise maintain qualification to practice as a certified public accountant in the State of Arizona.” 2 The Interim Consent Agreement also required Hirsch & Shah to apply for renewal of its firm registration, to pay applicable fees, and to “otherwise maintain qualification to practice as a certified public accounting firm in the State of Arizona.” 3 8. The Interim Consent Agreement specifically provided in relevant part as follows:

Agreement that was submitted as the Board’s Exhibit 1. These facts were not disputed and are provided as background. 2 The Board’s Exhibit 1 at 8 ¶ 6. The Board’s Exhibit 1 at 8 ¶ 7. If [Mr. Hirsch and Hirsch & Shah] fail to timely comply with any of the provisions of this Interim Order, or hold [themselves] out as CPAs or a CPA Firm after the effective date of this Interim Order, the Board may direct that the matter proceed to a noncompliance hearing for the revocation of [Mr. Hirsch’s certificate] and [Hirsch & Shah’s] Firm registration. 4 9. At the Board’s May 6, 2013 meeting, its members considered whether Mr. Hirsch and Shah & Hirsch had complied with the Interim Consent Agreement. The Board voted to file a Complaint and Notice of Hearing for the revocation of Mr. Hirsch’s CPA certificate and Hirsch & Shah’s firm registration for non-compliance with the Interim Consent Agreement. 5 10. The Board referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. On or about May 10, 2013, the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Public Hearing against Mr. Hirsch and Hirsch & Shah charging unprofessional conduct as defined by A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(6), specifically A.R.S. § 32-747(A) and (E), A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(9), A.R.S. § 32-742(B), and A.A.C. R4- 1-455.03(D)(2). 11. A hearing was held on July 9, 2013. The Board submitted eight exhibits and presented the testimony of Ryan Edmonson, its Compliance Manager. Mr. Hirsch testified and submitted one exhibit on his own behalf. Hirsch & Shah submitted three

exhibits.

12. During the hearing, the Board withdrew the charged violations of A.R.S. §

A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(6) and (9), but not A.R.S. § 32-742(B), against Hirsch & Shah.

HEARING EVIDENCE

13. Mr. Edmonson testified that Arizona is one of three title states out of 55

jurisdictions that regulate the use of the title, “CPA,” rather than the actual practice of

accounting. If an individual or firm does not use the title, “CPA,” the Board is not

authorized to regulate the individual or firm.

14. Mr. Hirsch testified that the attorney who represented Hirsch & Shah at the

time of the Interim Consent Agreement advised the firm to remove the “CPA”

4 The Board’s Exhibit 1 at 9 ¶ 10. See the Board’s Exhibit 3 at 13-14 designation from all documents and communications that it used in its business, including business cards, stationery, telephone greetings, signage, checks, software, advertising, fax headers, and statutory agent designations. Mr. Hirsch acknowledged the firm’s former attorney advised him that “[w]hen in doubt, [send] written notice to licensing agency of issue and how you propose to handle it, and get written confirmation of agreement, or disagreement.” 6 15. On or about November 21, 2011, Mr. Shah, on behalf of Hirsch & Shah, submitted a request to the Arizona Corporation Commission to change the name of the limited liability company from “Hirsch & Shah, CPA’s, LLC” to “Hirsch & Shah, LLC.” 7 16. Mr. Hirsch testified that he and the firm made all the changes that its former attorney suggested, including changing business cards twice, once after the Interim Consent Agreement and again after the firm moved its offices. 17. The Board submitted an email string of correspondence between its employee, Melanie A. Alexander, and Manuel Lagunas, Jr., CPA, and Susan Olson, who were employed by the Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”). Mr. Lagunas’ initial April 2, 2013 e-mail to Ms. Alexander provided as follows: One of the units under the Office of Revenue Audit, the Rental Surcharge Unit audits organizations that rent out vehicles. In one of our audits one of our auditors presented me with information that shows Mr. Hirsch is using the “CPA” designation after his name and in some documents he [is] using CPA as the title after his name. I looked him up on the Board of Accountancy website and saw that he had a status of “Suspended”. Can you please let me know when his license was suspended? 8

18. After Ms. Alexander requested documentation that showed that Mr. Hirsch

had used the CPA designation after November 21, 2011, Ms. Olson, as ADOT’s

custodian of records, provided the Board with four documents: (1) ADOT’s form Receipt

for Original Financial Records with the Itemized List “2008 April May” and “2009 May—

December,” offered by “Tom Hirsch CPA,” and dated June 9, 2012 9 ; (2) The last page

6 Hirsch & Shah’s Exhibit 1. See Hirsch & Shah’s Exhibit 11. 8 The Board’s Exhibit 2 at 4. See id. at 5. of an undated ADOT form Rental Vehicle Surcharge Reimbursement General questionnaire signed by Tom Hirsch with the title, “CPA” 10 ; (3) A Form 1120S tax return for Arizona RV Supercenter LLC for the year 2009 with the firm name, “Hirsch and Shah CPA’s, LLC” as the preparer, and the date March 7, 2012 11 ; and (4) A form 1120S tax return for Arizona RV Outlet Inc. for the year 2008 with the firm name, “Hirsch and Shah CPA’s, LLC” as the preparer, and the date March 7, 2012. 12 19. Mr. Edmonson testified that Mr. Hirsch’s four uses of the title, “CPA,” for himself and for Hirsch & Shah in 2012, violated the Interim Consent Agreement and provided grounds for the Board to revoke his certificate. 20. Mr. Edmonson acknowledged that Mr. Hirsch had provided the forms to ADOT in response to an audit of a client’s 2008 and 2009 tax returns and that the tax returns showed the dates that when the documents were printed, not when they had been prepared or filed. 21. Mr. Hirsch testified that in March 2012, ADOT contacted him about an audit that it was performing of his client’s 2008 and 2009 tax returns. Because he did not have hard copies of the tax returns and ADOT did not want to obtain the returns from the IRS, ADOT asked him to print copies of the returns from the firm’s computer records. 22. Mr. Hirsch testified that in January 2012, ADOT first contacted him about its audit of his client, Arizona RV, for payment of a 5% entertainment tax that ADOT was entitled to collect on the rental of recreational vehicles in tax years 2008 and 2009. Mr. Hirsch testified that he did not have hard copies of the original tax returns and that the auditor chose not to obtain copies from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). 23. Mr. Hirsch testified that the auditor asked him to reprint the forms from his computer records. Mr. Hirsh testified that the form 1120S tax returns that he printed for the tax years 2008 and 2009 were identical to the original returns that he had filed, but that when he printed the returns, the computer printed the date the returns were printed, not when they were prepared or filed. See id. at 6. 11 See id. at 7. 24. Mr. Hirsch testified that on July 9, 2012, he signed ADOT’s Receipt for Original Financial Records with the CPA title because the tax returns that he printed out pursuant to ADOT’s request were what he had originally filed for tax years 2008 and 2009 were unsigned. Mr. Hirsch testified that when he initially signed the tax returns that were later filed with the IRS, he was still able to use the CPA title. Mr. Hirsch explained that since the receipt was for original records, he felt that he should sign the receipt the same way that he had signed the original returns. 25. Mr. Edmonson testified that he received a telephone call from an IRS agent named “Maura” in Arizona who stated that Mr. Hirsch had generated at least four Form 2848-S forms for power of attorney in Arizona that used the CPA designation, but that the Board had not been able to obtain copies of the signed forms. The Board submitted a recorded voicemail message that had been left for Mr. Edmonson in April 2013, in relevant part as follows: CALLER: Hi, Ryan. This is Maura Burdell. I’m a revenue agent from the IRS, Phoenix, Arizona. . . . This is about Tom Hirsch. I’m returning your call now. He has been putting the CPA designation on Form 2848, and this has been going on for – oh, my gosh – probably up to a year now. And it’s caused an embarrassment to us. We don’t – we’re supposed to check right away. Sometimes we don’t always get to it and then we have to go back and have the Form 2848 resigned by the taxpayer or something like that. And it’s caused us some headache, to say the least. And I’ve kind of reached my saturation point. That’s why I called your office last Friday to find the exact date that he had been suspended. . . . 13 26. Mr. Hirsch testified that an IRS Form 2848 grants a person or firm power of attorney to communicate on behalf of the taxpayer. Although an IRS Form 8821 serves the same general purpose, the designated person on a Form 2848 must be an enrolled agent or CPA. Mr. Hirsch explained that before the date of the Interim Consent Agreement, he previously had submitted a Form 2848 on behalf of the same client who was the subject of the ADOT audit regarding tax years 2008 and 2009. Mr. Hirsch explained that when he completed the General Questionnaire on behalf of the client with respect to the 2008 and 2009 tax years, he also used the designation, “CPA,”

12 See id. at 8. Court Reporter’s Transcript at 57-58, ll. 17-8. because that was required by the Form 2848 that he had previously had filed to be able to communicate with ADOT and the IRS on behalf of the client. 27. Mr. Hirsch testified that ADOT’s audit of the client was performed by numerous auditors and that when a new auditor took over, he informed the auditor that the Interim Consent Agreement prohibited him from using the designation, “CPA,” or from providing new services to the client under the authority of the previously filed Form 2848. Mr. Hirsch testified that he informed the auditor that his certificate and firm’s registration were suspended, although he did not go into detail. Mr. Hirsch testified that the auditor nonetheless directed him to prepare the Form 2848 because there was some confusion about whether a Form 2848 or a Form 8821 was required under the circumstances. Mr. Hirsch testified that when he filled out the Form 2848, he did not intend to represent himself as an active, practicing CPA. 28. Mr. Hirsch testified that the hearing involving the client’s dispute with ADOT was scheduled shortly after the hearing in this matter. Mr. Hirsch testified that although he may have inadvertently violated the Interim Consent Agreement by using the CPA title on ADOT’s audit of the client’s 2008 and 2009 tax returns, no member of the public was thereby misled and that the auditor may have filed the complaint to the Board to secure an advantage in the hearing against the client. 29. Mr. Hirsch testified that he did not use the CPA title on any original documents or tax returns that he prepared for clients after November 2011. 30. Mr. Hirsch submitted the CPA Registration Renewal form that the Board had sent him for the period from June 2013, to June 2015. The Form showed the name, “CPA: Tom Hirsch,” at the bottom. 14 31. The Board submitted the firm’s completed firm renewal form for 6/30/2013 – 6/30/2015 that showed the name of the firm as, “Hirsch & Shah, LLC,” with “CPA’s” crossed out. 15 The Board also submitted an e-mail from the Board’s Deputy Director, Jim Dubé, to Mr. Shah dated June 27, 2013, reminding him that he needed to submit name-change form for the firm to the Board.

14 See Mr. Hirsch’s Exhibit A. See the Board’s Exhibit 5. 32. Mr. Shah responded to Mr. Edmonson’s e-mail by stating that he had already submitted a completed firm name-change form in November 2011. 16 Mr. Shah’s e-mail address and signature block did not show the title, “CPA.” 33. Mr. Hirsch testified that he understood that Mr. Shah had submitted a name change to the Board to change the firm’s name immediately after the Interim Consent Agreement. 34. After Mr. Dubé stated that the Board’s files did not include a completed name-change form for the firm, on or about June 27, 2013, Mr. Shah faxed a form to change the firm name from “Hirsch & Shah, CPA’s, LLC” to “Hirsch & Shah LLC.” 17 35. Mr. Edmonson testified that after the Interim Consent Agreement was issued, the Board must approve a name change for a firm, but that before June 2013, no one had submitted a name change to the Board to change the firm’s name from “Hirsch & Shah, CPA’s, LLC” to “Hirsch & Shah, LLC.” 36. Mr. Edmonson testified that the Board generates firm and registration renewal forms based on the name on the Board’s records for the individual or the firm. Mr. Edmonson testified that unless Mr. Hirsch or Mr. Shah submitted a request to change the firm name, the Board could not change its record of the firm’s name. Mr. Edmonson acknowledged that the Interim Consent Agreement did not require Mr. Hirsch or Mr. Shah to change the firm name. 37. Mr. Hirsch testified that Mr. Shah was not aware of Mr. Hirsch’s communications with ADOT regarding the audit of the client and was not involved in Mr. Hirsch’s completion of the forms. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board has been created and authorized to regulate and control the profession of Certified Public Accountancy in Arizona. 18 This matter lies within its jurisdiction. 2. The Board bears the burden of proof to establish that Mr. Hirsch and Hirsch

See the Board’s Exhibit 6. 17 See the Board’s Exhibit 7. See A.R.S. § 32-701 et seq. and A.A.C. R4-1-101 et seq. & Shah committed unprofessional conduct as defined by the Board’s statutes and regulations by a preponderance of the evidence. 19 “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” 20 3. Although the Board established that Mr. Hirsch used the designation, CPA, four times in July 2012, Mr. Hirsch credibly testified that his use was only to reproduce the signature on the documents as originally submitted for tax years 2008 and 2009, before the effective date of the Interim Consent Agreement. Although Mr. Hirsch’s uses of the designation are technical violations of 32-741(A)(6), 21 specifically A.R.S. § 32- 747(A) and (E), 22 he did not intend to mislead anyone and no member of the public was actually misled. 4. The complaint from the ADOT auditor and voicemail from IRS auditor do not establish that Mr. Hirsch knowingly violated the Interim Consent Agreement. The ADOT complaint and the voicemail are hearsay. 23 Although hearsay may be admitted in an administrative hearing, 24 it should not be relied upon if it is not the kind of evidence

19 See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119; see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). 20 MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960). A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(6) includes among the grounds for the Board to suspend, revoke, or take other disciplinary action against the holder of a certificate, “[v]iolation of any of the provisions of this chapter, of title 44, chapter 12, article 13 or of any fraud provisions of the federal securities laws.” A.R.S. § 32-747 describes unlawful use of designation or abbreviation and provides in relevant part as follows: A. An individual who has received from the board a certificate to practice as a certified public accountant or as a public accountant issued under the laws of the state or who is a limited reciprocity privilege holderunder section 32-725 shall be known as a "certified public accountant" or "public accountant", in accordance with the certificate or the privilege and may also use the abbreviation "C.P.A.", "CPA", "P.A." or "PA", in accordance with the certificate or the privilege. No other individual or firm shall assume or use any title, designation or abbreviation or any other title, designation, sign, card or device in this state tending to indicate that the individual or firm using it is authorized to practice public accounting or is a certified public accountant or a public accountant. .... E. If an individual violates this chapter, or represents himself to the public as having received a certificate or registration to practice after a certificate or registration has been revoked or suspended, the individual is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor unless another classification is specifically prescribed in this chapter. Each day an offense is committed constitutes a separate offense. See Ariz. R. Evid. 801(c) (“‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”). See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(F)(1). that reasonable persons would rely upon in serious matters. 25 Because both ADOT and the IRS are involved in adversarial relationships with Mr. Hirsch and his client, their auditors’ hearsay statements are not the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons would rely to unconditionally revoke his CPA certificate or the firm’s CPA registration. 5. Mr. Hirsch should have consulted the Board about his understanding of the Interim Consent Agreement’s requirements for documents that were originally prepared for tax years 2008 and 2009 and reprinted during the course of an ongoing audit. Although pursuant to A.A.C. R4-1-102(A), Mr. Hirsch is deemed to have knowledge of the Board’s administrative rules, the Board charged him with a possible violation of the Interim Consent Agreement, not an administrative rule. Because Mr. Hirsch credibly testified that he misunderstood the terms of the Interim Consent Agreement and his understanding was not unreasonable, although in retrospect, his understanding was mistaken, the Board did not establish that Mr. Hirsch knowingly violated the Interim Consent Agreement or committed unprofessional conduct as defined by A.R.S. § 32- 741(A)(9). 26 6. Although Mr. Hirsch committed unprofessional conduct by using the CPA designation in 2012, after he reprinted documents that he initially prepared for the 2008 and 2009 tax years, thereby providing grounds for the Board to take disciplinary action against his CPA certificate under A.R.S. § 32-741, as noted above, he established factors in mitigation of the penalty. The Board did not establish that Mr. Hirsch’s unprofessional conduct at this time justifies discipline against Hirsch & Shah under A.R.S. § 32-742(B)(1) 27 and A.A.C. R4-1-455.03(D)(2). 28

See Plowman v. Arizona State Liquor Board, 152 Ariz. 331, 337, 732 P.2d 222, 228 (App. 1986) (citing Begay v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 128 Ariz. 407, 626 P.2d 137 (App. 1981)). A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(9) includes among the grounds for the Board to suspend, revoke, or take other disciplinary action against the holder of a certificate, “[k]nowing violation of any decision, order or rule issued or adopted by the board.” 27 A.R.S. § 32-742 provides in relevant part as follows: A. After notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the board shall revoke a firm's registration to practice public accounting if at any time it does not have all the qualifications prescribed by this chapter. ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that Mr. Hirsch shall, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32- 701(6)(f), reimburse the Board's costs of investigating the complaint in this matter and proceeding to hearing in the amount of three thousand, five hundred forty-one dollars and 03/100 ($3,541.03) within thirty (“30”) days after the effective date of this final order. It is further ordered that if Mr. Hirsch fails to timely reimburse the Board’s costs of investigating the complaint and proceeding to hearing, the Board shall revoke Mr. Hirsch’s Certified Public Accountant Certificate No. 2730-E and Hirsch & Shah’s Certified Public Accounting Firm Registration No. 2371-L. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Respondent is hereby notified that he has the right to petition for a rehearing or review by filing a petition with the Board’s Executive Director within thirty (30) days after service of this Order. A.R.S. §41-1092.09. The petition must set forth legally sufficient reasons for granting a rehearing. A.A.C. R4-1-114(C). Service of this Order is effective on the date of personal delivery or five days after the date of mailing. If a motion for rehearing is not filed, the Board’s Order becomes effective thirty (30) days after it is mailed to Respondent.

Respondent is further notified that the filing of a motion for rehearing is required to preserve any rights of appeal to the Superior Court.

DATED this 19th day of September, 2013.

ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY B. After notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the board may revoke or suspend a firm's registration to practice public accounting and may additionally take disciplinary action concerning the registrant for any of the causes enumerated in section 32-741, subsection A or for any of the following additional causes: 1. The revocation or suspension of any certificate issued by the board of any partner, shareholder, member, manager, officer, director, agent or employee of the firm. A.A.C. R4-1-455.03(D) provides in relevant part as follows: Form of practice and name .... 2. A certified public accountant or public accountant shall not use a professional or firm name or designation that is misleading about the legal form of the firm, or about the persons who are partners, officers, members, managers, or shareholders of the firm, or about any other matter. A firm name or designation shall not include words such as “& Company,” “& Associates,” or “& Consultants” unless the terms refer to additional full- time CPAs that are not otherwise mentioned in the firm name.

By:___________________________________ Karen K. McCloskey, CPA, Board President Original of the foregoing filed this 19th day of September, 2013, with: Monica L. Petersen Executive Director Arizona State Board of Accountancy 100 N. 15th Avenue, Suite 165 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Copy of the foregoing filed this 19th day of September, 2013, with: Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 W. Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Via: https://portal.azoah.com/aljdec/documents/acy/

Copy of the foregoing mailed via regular USPS and certified mail return receipt no. [account number redacted] 8029 this 19th day of September, 2013, to: Tom Hirsch 2633 E. Indian School Rd., Ste. 120 Phoenix, AZ 85016

Copy of the foregoing mailed via regular USPS and certified mail return receipt no. [account number redacted] 8036 this 19th day of September, 2013, to:

Harish Shah Hirsch & Shah, LLC (formerly Hirsch & Shah, CPA’s LLC) 2633 E. Indian School Rd., Ste. 120 Phoenix, AZ 85016

Copy of the foregoing mailed this 19th day of September, 2013, to:

Seth T. Hargraves Assistant Attorney General 1275 W. Washington, CIV-LES Phoenix, Arizona 85007

By:____________________________________