ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

19F-2019.212-ACY · State Board of Accountancy · 2019-09-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: August 15, 2019

APPEARANCES: Respondent Alan L. Wilson did not appear. The Arizona Board of Accountancy (Board) was represented by Assistant Attorney General Scott Donald; witness Chris Rasmussen.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Arizona State Board of Accountancy (Board) is the State agency authorized pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-701 et seq., to regulate the profession of Certified Public Accountant professionals (CPA) in the State of Arizona. 2. The Board issued Certified Public Accounting Certifcate No. 4749-E to Alan L. Wilson (Respondent). 3. The Board issued Accounting Firm Registration No. 2808-L to Respondent Alan L. Wilson, CPA, PLLC (Respondent Firm). Respondent Firm’s registration was last renewed on March 29, 2018. See Exhibit 1. Respondent Firm has only one member, Respondent. 4. On February 1, 2019, Respondent’s CPA Certificate No. 4749-E was suspended for non-registration. 5. On May 1, 2019, the Board issued an Expiration Order to Respondent based on his failure to have completed the registration requirements. See Exhibit 2. 6. On July 12, 2019, the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing to Respondent at the address of record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board was created and authorized to regulate and control the profession of Certified Public Accountancy in Arizona.[1] This matter lies within its jurisdiction, the applicable laws found at A.R.S. § 32- 701 et seq. 2. The Board bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent‘s CPS Certificate and Respondent Firm’s Registration by a preponderance of the evidence.[2] Respondents bear the burden to establish affirmative defenses or factors in mitigation of any penalty by the same evidentiary standard.[3] 3. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[4] 4. The copy of the Complaint and Notice of Hearing that the Board mailed to Respondent at the address of record was reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. See A.R.S. §§ 41- 1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D). 5. A CPA firm must have ownership in good standing with its licensure requirements. With the suspension Respondent’s CPA license, the Respondent Firm no longer met the statutory requirements to have a simple majority of ownership of licensees in good standing. See A.R.S. § 32-731(A)(1)(a). 6. Respondent did not appear at the administrative hearing and therefore presented no evidence to dispute the facts known to the Board. Therefore, under A.R.S. § 32-731(A)(1)(a), the Board is authorized to discipline Respondent Firm’s Registration. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the final Order in this matter, the Board revoke Respondent Firm’s Registration. It is further recommended that the Board require Respondent to reimburse the Board’s costs of this matter and proceeding to hearing, under 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, September 4, 2019 /s/ Kay Abramsohn Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Monica L. Petersen, Executive Director Arizona State Board of Accountancy ----------------------- [1] See A.R.S. § 32-701 et seq. [2] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [3] See A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2). [4] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826