A profession without borders
Most states now impose differing and sometimes onerous notification and fee demands on CPAs who want to do business in their jurisdictions, even if a CPA has no intention of establishing an office there - or even being physically present. The American Institute of CPAs and the National Association o...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Accounting Today 2007-11, Vol.21 (20), p.6 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 20 |
container_start_page | 6 |
container_title | Accounting Today |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Bishop, Ken L Coffey, Susan S |
description | Most states now impose differing and sometimes onerous notification and fee demands on CPAs who want to do business in their jurisdictions, even if a CPA has no intention of establishing an office there - or even being physically present. The American Institute of CPAs and the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy for years have been concerned about difficult-to-enforce and even unreasonable rules and restrictions placed on CPAs, which serve neither the public interest nor the profession. The organizations' joint Uniform Accountancy Act Committee ultimately determined that the guiding principle for any mobility system should both eliminate the barriers to interstate practice and retain the basic tenets of the state-based regulatory system, which for many years has ensured appropriate protection of the public. the states are quickly coming to appreciate that restrictions on CPA mobility are in nobody's best interests, particularly the public's. Prior to this year, only four states - Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia - had "no-notification" mobility laws on their books that allowed CPAs from other substantial-equivalency states to practice in their states without providing notification. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_234435873</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1404858021</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_reports_2344358733</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0NDAx0TU1NzThYOAqLs4yMDA0MDQ25GSQcVQoKMpPSy0uzszPUyjPLMnILy1RSMovSkktKuZhYE1LzClO5YXS3AyKbq4hzh66QC2FpanFJfFFqQX5RSXF8UbGJibGphbmxsbEqAEANscqEw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>234435873</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A profession without borders</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>Bishop, Ken L ; Coffey, Susan S</creator><creatorcontrib>Bishop, Ken L ; Coffey, Susan S</creatorcontrib><description>Most states now impose differing and sometimes onerous notification and fee demands on CPAs who want to do business in their jurisdictions, even if a CPA has no intention of establishing an office there - or even being physically present. The American Institute of CPAs and the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy for years have been concerned about difficult-to-enforce and even unreasonable rules and restrictions placed on CPAs, which serve neither the public interest nor the profession. The organizations' joint Uniform Accountancy Act Committee ultimately determined that the guiding principle for any mobility system should both eliminate the barriers to interstate practice and retain the basic tenets of the state-based regulatory system, which for many years has ensured appropriate protection of the public. the states are quickly coming to appreciate that restrictions on CPA mobility are in nobody's best interests, particularly the public's. Prior to this year, only four states - Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia - had "no-notification" mobility laws on their books that allowed CPAs from other substantial-equivalency states to practice in their states without providing notification.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1044-5714</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: SourceMedia dba Arizent</publisher><subject>Auditing standards ; CPAs ; Legislation ; Licensing ; Public interest ; Reciprocity ; Regulation ; State regulation</subject><ispartof>Accounting Today, 2007-11, Vol.21 (20), p.6</ispartof><rights>Copyright SourceMedia Nov 5-Nov 25, 2007</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>312,776,780,787</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bishop, Ken L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coffey, Susan S</creatorcontrib><title>A profession without borders</title><title>Accounting Today</title><description>Most states now impose differing and sometimes onerous notification and fee demands on CPAs who want to do business in their jurisdictions, even if a CPA has no intention of establishing an office there - or even being physically present. The American Institute of CPAs and the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy for years have been concerned about difficult-to-enforce and even unreasonable rules and restrictions placed on CPAs, which serve neither the public interest nor the profession. The organizations' joint Uniform Accountancy Act Committee ultimately determined that the guiding principle for any mobility system should both eliminate the barriers to interstate practice and retain the basic tenets of the state-based regulatory system, which for many years has ensured appropriate protection of the public. the states are quickly coming to appreciate that restrictions on CPA mobility are in nobody's best interests, particularly the public's. Prior to this year, only four states - Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia - had "no-notification" mobility laws on their books that allowed CPAs from other substantial-equivalency states to practice in their states without providing notification.</description><subject>Auditing standards</subject><subject>CPAs</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Licensing</subject><subject>Public interest</subject><subject>Reciprocity</subject><subject>Regulation</subject><subject>State regulation</subject><issn>1044-5714</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYeA0NDAx0TU1NzThYOAqLs4yMDA0MDQ25GSQcVQoKMpPSy0uzszPUyjPLMnILy1RSMovSkktKuZhYE1LzClO5YXS3AyKbq4hzh66QC2FpanFJfFFqQX5RSXF8UbGJibGphbmxsbEqAEANscqEw</recordid><startdate>20071105</startdate><enddate>20071105</enddate><creator>Bishop, Ken L</creator><creator>Coffey, Susan S</creator><general>SourceMedia dba Arizent</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X1</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8A9</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ANIOZ</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRAZJ</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20071105</creationdate><title>A profession without borders</title><author>Bishop, Ken L ; Coffey, Susan S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_reports_2344358733</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Auditing standards</topic><topic>CPAs</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Licensing</topic><topic>Public interest</topic><topic>Reciprocity</topic><topic>Regulation</topic><topic>State regulation</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bishop, Ken L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coffey, Susan S</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career and Technical Education (ProQuest Database)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Accounting Today</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bishop, Ken L</au><au>Coffey, Susan S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A profession without borders</atitle><jtitle>Accounting Today</jtitle><date>2007-11-05</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>20</issue><spage>6</spage><pages>6-</pages><issn>1044-5714</issn><abstract>Most states now impose differing and sometimes onerous notification and fee demands on CPAs who want to do business in their jurisdictions, even if a CPA has no intention of establishing an office there - or even being physically present. The American Institute of CPAs and the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy for years have been concerned about difficult-to-enforce and even unreasonable rules and restrictions placed on CPAs, which serve neither the public interest nor the profession. The organizations' joint Uniform Accountancy Act Committee ultimately determined that the guiding principle for any mobility system should both eliminate the barriers to interstate practice and retain the basic tenets of the state-based regulatory system, which for many years has ensured appropriate protection of the public. the states are quickly coming to appreciate that restrictions on CPA mobility are in nobody's best interests, particularly the public's. Prior to this year, only four states - Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia - had "no-notification" mobility laws on their books that allowed CPAs from other substantial-equivalency states to practice in their states without providing notification.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>SourceMedia dba Arizent</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1044-5714 |
ispartof | Accounting Today, 2007-11, Vol.21 (20), p.6 |
issn | 1044-5714 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_reports_234435873 |
source | EBSCOhost Business Source Complete |
subjects | Auditing standards CPAs Legislation Licensing Public interest Reciprocity Regulation State regulation |
title | A profession without borders |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T16%3A55%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20profession%20without%20borders&rft.jtitle=Accounting%20Today&rft.au=Bishop,%20Ken%20L&rft.date=2007-11-05&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=20&rft.spage=6&rft.pages=6-&rft.issn=1044-5714&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E1404858021%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=234435873&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |