ALJDEC - Licensing
23A-2023.210-ACY · State Board of Accountancy · 2023-07-10
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matter of:
Certified Public Accountant
Certificate No. 13737
Issued to: MARILYN J. MEYERS
Respondent.
No. 23A-2023.210-ACY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 13, 2023
APPEARANCES: Marilyn Meyers appeared on her own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Scott Donald represented the Arizona State Board of Accountancy; Christopher Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Regulation and Compliance, appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Del Vecchio
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
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.
Marilyn J. Meyers (Respondent) held CPA Certificate No. 13737.
On May 3, 2021, the Board held a meeting regarding Respondent’s request for early retirement withdrawal and request for Continuing Professional Education (CPE) extension. At said meeting, the Board voted and denied Respondent an extension, but offered a Consent Order for an administrative penalty of $500.00 for violation of A.R.S. § 32-730 and A.A.C. R4-453(C) for failure to meet CPE requirements as a prerequisite to registration to be paid to the Board within 30 days and, upon receipt of the penalty, the Consent Order would be automatically terminated.
On or about May 14, 2021, the Board created File No. 2021.199 to track the matter and sent the Decision and Order to Respondent for a response. Respondent’s response was due June 14, 2021, and was never received.
On or about July 19, 2021, a new compliance file, File No. 2022.13 was created. The Board directed the Assistant Attorney General to file a Complaint and Notice of Hearing for revocation of Respondent’s certificate under A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(9) and A.A.C. R4-1-455.03(D) for failure to respond to the offered Consent Order.
On July 30, 2021, the Complaint and Notice of Hearing for the non-response was filed.
On October 8, 2021, a hearing was held with Respondent in attendance.
On October 20, 2021, an Administrative Law Judge decision was issued recommending that a $2,000.00 administrative penalty be assessed against Respondent and that she be ordered to reimburse the Board for its costs of investigation and proceedings in the matter.
On November 8, 2021, the Board voted to issue a Decision and Order, which required Respondent to pay an administrative penalty of $2,000.00, pay reimbursement in the amount of $363.53, and respond to the Board’s May 14, 2021 offer of a Consent Order within 30-days.
On November 22, 2021, Respondent submitted a letter to the Board in which she acknowledged she owed, “#2,363.53 (sic) ordered in OAH Docket No. 22A-2022.013-ACY, and the $500 requested previously by the board.” (Emphasis added). Respondent requested a payment plan to pay the monies due, as she did not have the funds at the time to pay them.
On December 6, 2021, the Board agreed to extend the deadline for 12 months from the order’s effective date to pay the $500.00 administrative penalty due and extend the deadline for 12 months from the order’s effective date to pay the $2,000.00 administrative penalty and $363.53 reimbursement.
On December 9, 2021, a letter was sent via certified mail to Respondent providing her a copy of the executed Consent Order related to File No. 2021.199. Furthermore, it stated that the Board reviewed and approved the following extensions:. 1. $500.00 administrative penalty related to File No. 2021.199 until December 9, 2022; 2. $2,000.00 administrative penalty related to File No. 2022.013 until December 21, 2022; and 3. $363.53 reimbursement costs related to File No. 2022.013 until December 21, 2022.
On February 28, 2022, the Board received a letter from Respondent, which stated, “Here is payment for $2,363.53 ordered in OAH Docket No. 22A-2022.013-ACY, and the $500 requested previously by the board.” (Emphasis added). The letter included a single check totaling $2,363.53. The “$500” referenced in the letter was not included.
On March 1, 2022, the Board left Respondent a voicemail and sent Respondent an email concerning the matter of the missing “$500” reference in the letter. Respondent replied to Board’s email, “I’ve submitted the payment by the court” and “I mailed check #119, for $2,363.53, as per the attached court order.”
On March 2, 2022, Chris Rasmussen, reached out to Respondent to clarify the issue of the missing $500.00 referenced in Respondent’s letter from February 28, 2022.
On October 13, 2022, the Board sent Respondent an email requesting clarification and further reminding Respondent that the $500.00 administrative penalty related to File No. 2021.199 was due December 9, 2022. No response was received.
On December 9, 2022, no payment was received.
On January 18, 2023, the Board sent a letter to Respondent which informed her that she had 30 days from the date of the letter to pay the $500.00 administrative penalty, that is, by February 17, 2023.
On January 23, 2023, Respondent sent a letter to the Board explaining she “believed all the fees had been paid and the case was closed.” No $500.00 payment was provided.
On January 30, 2023, the Board sent a letter to Respondent attempting to clarify the situation and differentiate what Respondent had and had not paid. Respondent left two voicemails with Chris Rasmusssen indicating she felt she did not need to pay the $500.00 and she believed the court only required her to pay the $2,000.00 penalty plus costs.
On February 7, 2023, the Board sent Respondent a letter in an attempt to clarify the differences between the $500.00 to be paid in association with File No. 2022.013 and the already paid $2,363.53 associated with File No. 2021.199.
On February 17, 2023, the Board received a letter from Respondent which included duplicative content to her January 30, 2023, letter. The $500.00 penalty was not paid.
At the hearing, Respondent testified she did not believe she owed the $500.00 notwithstanding her letters dated November 22, 2021, and February 20, 2022, in which she admitted she owed the money.
At the hearing, the Board requested a revocation of Respondent’s certificate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board was created and authorized to regulate and control the profession of Certified Public Accountancy in Arizona. This matter lies within its jurisdiction, the applicable laws found at A.R.S. § 32-701 et seq.
The Board has the burden of proof and the standard of proof on all issues is 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 “[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.”
The preponderance of evidence shows Respondent admitted in her letters dated November 22, 2021, and February 20, 2022, she owed the $500.00. Respondent failed to pay the $500.00 prior to the multiple extended deadlines.
The Board has authority to revoke or suspend any certificate and may take disciplinary action concerning the holder of any certificate who violates any rule adopted by the Board.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s CPA certificate No. 13737 be revoked.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
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 forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, July 10, 2023.
/s/ Brian Del Vecchio
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Monica L. Petersen, Executive Director
Arizona State Board of Accountancy
100 N. 15 Ave., Ste 165
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Scott Donald
Office of the Attorney General
Assistant Attorney General
Licensing & Enforcement Section
2005 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
[email redacted]
Marilyn Meyers
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff