ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
17F-2018.009-ACY · State Board of Accountancy · 2018-02-14
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matter of
Certified Public Accounting Firm
Registration No. 2995-L
Issued to: MONTERA MANAGEMENT, LLC
Respondent Firm.
No. 17F.2018.009-ACY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 25, 2018
APPEARANCES: Respondent Firm Montera Management, LLC did not appear at the hearing in this matter. The Arizona State Board of Accountancy was represented by Assistant Attorney General Scott Donald.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Arizona State Board of Accountancy (Board) is the state agency authorized to regulate the practice of public accounting by certified public accountants in the State of Arizona.
Montera Management LLC (Respondent Firm) is the holder of firm Registration No. 2995-L, issued by the Board.
The Board has the personal and subject matter jurisdiction over Respondent Firm pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-701 et seq. and A.A.C. R4-1-101 et seq.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-730(A) and A.A.C. R4-1-345, every certified public accountant (CPA), public accountant, and firm is required to register once every two years with the Board and to pay a registration fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-729 and A.A.C. R4-1-345.
On or about June 5, 2015, Respondent Firm submitted its biennial firm registration renewal form for Firm Registration No. 2995-L, listing CPA Richard F. Avery, Certificate No. 12720-E, as its Partner In Charge under A.R.S. § 32-731(C), and listing him as Respondent Firm’s only current CPA partner.
Mr. Avery’s individual CPA renewal registration for Certificate No. 12720-E was due at the Board’s office by April 30, 2017. When it was not received by the April 30, 2017 due date, Mr. Avery’s Certificate No. 12720-E to practice as a CPA in Arizona was automatically suspended pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-741.01(A) for failure to timely register and pay the biennial registration fee as requested by A.R.S. § 32-729, A.R.S. § 32-730(A), and A.A.C. R4-1-345.
On or about May 1, 2017, a Suspension Order was mailed to Mr. Avery to notify Mr. Avery that his Certificate No. 12720-E was suspended for non-registration.
On or about May 9, 2017, a “Notification of Failure to Meet Firm Qualifications” (Notification Letter) was mailed to Respondent Firm’s Partner in Charge, Mr. Avery. The Notification Letter notified Respondent Firm that as of May 1, 2017, CPA Certificate No. 12720-E, belonging to Mr. Avery, was suspended due to non-renewal of the certificate. The Notification Letter further notified Respondent Firm that:
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-731(A)(1), CPA firm qualifications include the requirement that a firm have at least one partner who is a resident and a full-time practicing certified public accountant in good standing in Arizona. According to our records, MONTERA MANAGEMENT, LLC (Firm 2995-L) does not presently meet this statutory requirement to be registered and recognized as a CPA firm in Arizona.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-742(A), “[a]fter 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.” Therefore if RICHARD F. AVERY does not renew the individual CPA Certificate No. 12720-E by 6/8/2017, the Board may take action to REVOKE the firm’s registration.
Mr. Avery did not renew Certificate No. 12720-E by the June 8, 2017 deadline.
As Mr. Avery’s Certificate No. 12720-E is in suspended status, Respondent Firm does not have at least one partner who is a resident and a full-time practicing CPA in good standing in Arizona.
On or about July 10, 2017, the Board voted to proceed with a complaint against Respondent Firm.
On or about December 19, 2017, the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing to Respondent Firm via certified mail.
A hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on January 25, 2018. The Board submitted three exhibits and presented the testimony of Christopher Rasmussen to establish the facts set forth above.
Respondent Firm did not request to appear telephonically at the duly noticed hearing and did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed more than twenty minutes to allow a representative of Respondent Firm additional travel time, no one appeared, personally or through an attorney, or contacted the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent Firm did not present any evidence to defend its certificate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Complaint and Notice of Public Hearing that the Board mailed to Respondent Firm at its address of record was reasonable, and Respondent Firm is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.
The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent Firm and the subject matter in this case. A.R.S. § 32-701 et seq. and A.A.C. R4-1-101 et seq.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2), the Board has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119.
A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1301 (9th ed. 2009).
The Board has the authority to revoke or suspend Respondent Firm’s firm registration and take additional disciplinary action pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-742(A).
Respondent Firm’s failure to have at least one partner who was a resident and a full-time practicing certified public accountant in good standing in the state of Arizona constituted grounds to impose disciplinary action against Respondent Firm pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-731(A)(1).
The evidence of record supports the revocation of Respondent Firm’s Firm Registration No. 2995-L pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-731 and 32-742.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that Respondent Firm’s Firm Registration No. 2995-L be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter.
It is further recommended that Respondent shall reimburse the Board’s costs for investigating and proceeding to hearing in 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 shall be five (5) days from the date of the certification.
Done this day, February 14, 2018
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Monica L. Petersen, Executive Director
Arizona State Board of Accountancy