ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

17F-2017.057-ACY · State Board of Accountancy · 2017-10-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matters of

Certified Public Accountant

Certificate No. 9588-E

Issued to: DOUG W. GRIFFORE,

Respondent,

and

Certified Public Accounting Firm

Registration No. 2268-C

Issued to: DOUG W. GRIFFORE, CPA, P.C.

Respondent Firm.

Nos. 17F-2017.057-ACY

and 17F-2017.058-ACY

(Consolidated)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 13, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.

APPEARANCES: The Arizona State Board of Accountancy (“the Board”) was represented by Scott Donald, Esq., Assistant Attorney General; Doug W. Griffore (“Respondent”) and Doug W. Griffore, CPA, P.C. (“Respondent Firm”) failed to appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Arizona State Board of Accountancy (“the Board”) has issued Certified Public Accountant Certificate No. 9588-E to Respondent and Certified Public Accounting Firm Registration No. 2268-C to Respondent Firm. Respondent is the sole owner and the only certified public accountant who is a member of Respondent Firm.

On or about October 12, 2016, the Board received a complaint from two of Respondent’s and Respondent Firm’s clients that they had failed to timely provide tax files after informing Respondents that they were changing tax preparers.

The Board assigned the complaint to a contract investigator. According to the investigator’s report, Respondent acknowledged that he did not timely respond to the clients’ requests for records and, although Respondent eventually provided some records, they did not provide all the records in his possession. In addition, Respondent failed to respond to the investigator’s March 8, 2017 email and March 13, 2017 follow-up email requesting information.

On May 4, 2017, Board Staff sent a letter to Respondent and Respondent Firm at their address of record, inviting Respondent to an investigative interview at the Board’s June 26, 2017 meeting and requesting that Respondent inform the Board within 30 days whether he would attend the investigative interview. The Board also sent a copy of the investigator’s report and required Respondent to provide a written response to the investigator’s report.

On May 9, 2017, Board staff sent another letter to Respondent and Respondent Firm at their address record, informing them that the May 4, 2017 letter included a clerical error that required Respondents to provide a written response to the investigator’s report. The May 9, 2017 letter also informed Respondent that he was still required to respond to the May 4, 2017 letter by indicating whether he planned to attend the investigative interview.

On May 11, 2017, Respondent signed the certified mail receipt for the May 4, 2017 letter.

The Board did not receive any response from Respondent to the May 4, 2017 letter.

The Board referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On September 1, 2017, the Board issued a Notice of Public Hearing and Complaint, charging Respondent with having committed unprofessional conduct as defined by A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(9) by violating A.A.C. R4-1-455.03(F) and A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(15).

The Board’s Notice of Public Hearing and Complaint also notified Respondent that a hearing would be held at OAH on October 13, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. The Board sent the Notice of Public Hearing and Complainant to Respondent and Respondent Firm at their address of record.

A hearing was held on October 13, 2017. The Board submitted four exhibits and presented the testimony of Christopher Rasmussen, who is employed by the Board as its Assistant Director of Regulation and Compliance.

Respondent did not request to appear telephonically and did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the duly noticed hearing was delayed seventeen minutes to allow Respondent additional travel time, he did not appear, personally or through an attorney, and did not contact OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend his Certified Public Accountant Certificate or Respondent Firm’s registration.

The Board presented evidence to establish the facts set forth above. Mr. Rasmussen testified that the Board requires licensees to inform the Board whether they will attend a scheduled investigative interview so that the Board can avoid the expense of a court reporter if her services will not be necessary.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Notice of Public Hearing and Complaint that the Board mailed to Respondent at his addresses of record was reasonable and he is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.

The Board has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over Respondent and Respondent Firm pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-701 et seq. and A.A.C. R4-1-101 et seq. The Board has the authority to discipline Respondent and Respondent Firm pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-741.

The Board bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s certified public accountant certificate and Respondent Firm’s certified public accounting firm registration by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than 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.”

Respondent is deemed to have knowledge of the Board’s rules.

The Board established that Respondent failed to respond to at least two of the Board’s inquiries, in violation of A.A.C. R4-1-455.03(F). The Board thereby established cause to suspend or revoke Respondent’s certificate and Respondent Firm’s registration pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(9).

The Board also established cause to suspend or revoke Respondent’s certificate and Respondent Firm’s registration under A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(15).

Respondent’s failures to respond to clients’ request for documents or to the Board’s inquiries or to appear at the duly noticed public hearing to defend his certified public accountant certificate demonstrate that, at this time, he cannot be regulated.

Because Respondent is the sole owner and sole CPA member of Respondent Firm, if Respondent’s certified public accountant certificate is revoked, the Board must revoke Respondent Firm’s registration pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-742(B).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that on the effective date of the final order in this matter, Certified Public Accountant Certificate No. 9588-E previously issued to Respondent Doug W. Griffore shall be revoked.

It is further ordered that on the effective date of the final order, Certified Public Accounting Firm Registration No. 2268-C previously issued to Respondent Firm Doug W. Griffore, CPA, P.C. shall be revoked.

It is further ordered that on the effective date of the final order, Respondent and Respondent Firm shall jointly and severally be required to pay the Board’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred in investigating and prosecuting this matter pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-701(10)(g).

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be five days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, October 17, 2017.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Monica L. Petersen, Executive Director

Arizona State Board of Accountancy