ALJDEC - Licensing
25A-2025.186-ACY · State Board of Accountancy · 2025-08-06
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matter of
Certified Public Accountant
Certificate No. 19076
Issued to: Austin D. Graff,
Respondent.
No. 25A-2025.186-ACY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 30, 2025 at 9:00 AM.
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Scott Donald, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Arizona State Board of Accountancy (“Board”) with Christopher Rasmussen as a witness. No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Austin D. Graff (“Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Complaint and Notice of Hearing (“Notice of Hearing”), Board Exhibits 1-2, and July 16, 2025, Minute Entry were admitted into the evidentiary record.
_____________________________________________________________________
Having heard the evidence and testimony and having considered the record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge hereby makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and issues the following Recommended Order to the Executive Director of the Board.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
Respondent is the holder of Certified Public Accountant (“CPA”) Certificate No. 19076, issued by the Board.
Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior registration record as reflected on the Board’s public website. Such prior record reflects that Respondent’s CPA Registration was issued on September 24, 2018. There is no disciplinary action on file for Respondent.
Per the Notice of Hearing, the Board referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on July 30, 2025, to determine whether good cause exists to revoke, suspend or take other disciplinary action against Respondent’s certification.
Hearing Evidence
At the hearing, the Board submitted Exhibits 1-2 and presented the testimony of Mr. Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Regulation and Compliance. Although the start of the duly noticed hearing was briefly delayed allow Respondent additional time to appear, Respondent did not appear, by or through an attorney or owner, and did not contact OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. No request to continue was submitted on Respondent’s behalf. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its CPA Certificate. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:
On an unknown date, Board staff sent Respondent a letter via regular United States Postal Service mail regarding an investigative interview of Respondent by the Board’s Tax Advisory Committee related to a consumer complaint. Although correspondence was not returned as undeliverable, Respondent did not reply to the Board’s letter.
On February 20, 2025, Board staff sent Respondent a certified letter through United States Postal Service mail regarding the same investigative interview by the Board’s Tax Advisory Committee. This letter requested a response within thirty (30) days of the date of the cover letter. Additionally, Respondent was invited to provide the Board with any and all information he wished for the Board to consider regarding the underlying consumer complaint.
On February 26, 2025, Board staff received a receipt of delivery for the Board’s certified mailing, signed by Respondent on February 24, 2025.
Board staff did not receive a response, timely or otherwise, to the certified mailing.
Additional Evidence
On June 10, 2025, the Notice of Hearing was issued for this matter. Correspondence issued to Respondent was not returned as undeliverable by USPS.
On July 16, 2025, a Minute Entry providing remote participation hearing for the matter was provided to the parties. Correspondence issued to Respondent was not returned as undeliverable by his email domain or USPS.
Respondent did not request an informal Settlement Conference or Mediation in this matter.
Closing Arguments
Essentially, the Board argued that revocation was appropriate as evidence established Respondent refused to be regulated by the Board.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board is authorized to regulate the practice of public accounting in the State of Arizona, and as such, maintains personal and subject matter jurisdiction over Respondent pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) §§ 32-701, et seq. and Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-1-101, et seq.
This matter was properly brought before the Office of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
The Notice of Hearing the Board mailed to Respondent’s address of record is sufficient, and Respondent is deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing in this matter. Because the Board mailed all correspondence to Respondent in the same manner and failed to receive any mail returned as undeliverable, Respondent is deemed to have received all correspondence regarding this matter from the Board as well.
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-701 et seq., the Board is the authority for regulating the practice of Certified Public Accountants in the State of Arizona. Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-701 et seq., and Ariz. Admin. Code R4-1-101 et seq., the Board has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over Respondent.
Respondent is deemed to have knowledge of the Board’s rules.
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2), the Board has the burden of proof in this matter. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard. The standard of proof is 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 also, “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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-741(A)(9) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]fter notice and opportunity for a hearing, the board may revoke or suspend any certificate” and may also “take disciplinary action concerning the holder of any certificate” for violation of any decision, order, or rule issued by the Board.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-743(C) provides that “[i]f, after having been served with the notice of hearing, the person fails to appear at the hearing and defend, the board may proceed to hear evidence against the person and may enter such order as shall be justified by the evidence.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-741(A)(9) provides, in pertinent part, that after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the board may take disciplinary action against a certificate, up to an including revocation or suspension, for violation of any decision, order, or rule issued or adopted by the board.
Ariz. Admin. Code R4-1-455.03(D), in pertinent part, requires that a registrant shall file a written response to a communication from the Board within thirty (30) days of the date of said mailing.
Here, the material facts of record are not in dispute.
The Board established that Respondent never responded to either of its correspondences. Moreover, the Board also established that Respondent unequivocally received the Board’s latter correspondence issued February 20, 2025, well in advance of the required response date.
Therefore, the only remaining issue to address is whether Respondent raised sufficient justification or excuse for failing to respond to the Board’s correspondence, or at a minimum, ask for an extension regarding the reply deadline prior to the expiration thereof. These are an affirmative defenses that Respondent bears the burden to establish. The Tribunal is not at liberty to make presumptions in favor of Respondent or accept facts in mitigation on behalf of Respondent that are not supported by the evidence. Here, the record reflects that Respondent failed to act in any degree and had no affirmative defense(s) for doing so. Notably, Respondent’s absence from this administrative proceeding is also a factor in aggravation, as it evinces the licensee’s unwillingness to be regulated by the Registrar.
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record, the Tribunal finds that Respondent’s knowing, intentional, and volitional refusal to submit to the Board’s regulation and maintain communication establishes that he is unwilling to be regulated at this time.
Because the Board has established Respondent’s violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 741(A)(9); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-1-455.03(D) by a preponderance of the evidence, the Board has also established grounds to revoke Respondent’s CPA Certificate.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
In light of the foregoing,
it is recommended that on the effective date of the Board’s Final Order in this matter, the Board revoke Certified Public Accountant Certificate No. 19076 as issued to Respondent Austin D. Graff.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.08(I), a certificate holder may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising OAH in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the certificate holder accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the Final Decision by OAH.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of OAH, the effective date of the Order will be five (5) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, August 06, 2025.
Office of Administrative Hearings
/s/ Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Monica L. Petersen, Executive Director
c/o Christopher Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Regulation & Compliance
Arizona State Board of Accountancy
100 N. 15th Ave., Ste. 165
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Scott Donald, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Licensing and Enforcement Section
2005 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85004
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Austin D. Graff, Respondent
c/o Southwest Tax Strategies
6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 390
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff