Attorney General Opinion No.

Kansas Attorney General Reports·Decided February 10, 1999·Published

Opinion

Paul S. Allen, Chairman Board of Accountancy Landon State Office Building 900 S.W. Jackson, Suite 556 Topeka, Kansas 66612

Dear Chairman Allen:

You request our opinion regarding the authority of the Kansas Board of Accountancy (Board) over individuals who hold Kansas certificates but who do not hold permits to practice public accountancy. Specifically, you inquire whether a person who holds a Kansas certificate but who does not hold a permit to practice public accountancy may perform nonattest services for the public while using the certified public accountant (C.P.A.) designation and whether the Board has statutory authority to require a Kansas certificate holder who does not have a permit to obtain a permit if he or she performs nonattest services while using the C.P.A. designation.

Kansas accountancy law regulates the use of the C.P.A. designation. Since 1951, when the accountancy statutes were first enacted, K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 1-316 has remained essentially unchanged:

"(a) It is unlawful for any person, except the holder of a valid permit . . . to affix . . . the signature of any such person . . . to any accounting or financial statement, to any opinion on, report on, or certificate to any accounting or financial statement with any word indicating that such person . . . [is] a certified public accountant.

"(b) It is unlawful for any person, except the holder of a valid Kansas certificate, to use or assume the title `certified public accountant' or to use the abbreviation `C.P.A.' or any other title . . . likely to be confused with `certified public accountant.'"1 (Emphasis added.)

The Board may grant a Kansas certificate to a person who has passed the C.P.A. examination and meets certain residency and education requirements.2 A certificate holder may obtain a permit to practice after completing one year of supervised accounting experience.3 Subsection (b) of K.S.A. 1998 Supp.1-316 allows a certificate holder to use the C.P.A. designation. Subsection (a) restricts such use if performing certain accounting services unless the certificate holder also has a permit.

Clearly, only permit holders may use the C.P.A. designation if they perform the services identified in subsection (a) of K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 1-316. Those services appear to fall within the category of what the accountancy profession calls the "attest" function. Attest functions require that certified public accountants provide opinions on financial statements that are relied upon by third parties. You indicate that attest services include audits, reviews of financial statements, compilations of financial statements, and any examination of prospective financial information to be performed in accordance with certain professional standards.

However, the statutes do not address whether a certificate holder who does not have a permit can use the C.P.A. designation while performing accounting services commonly known as "nonattest" services. You indicate that nonattest services generally include preparing tax returns, providing advice on tax matters, providing management advisory services, and performing financial planning services. K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 1-316 clearly allows any certificate holder who does not have a permit to use the C.P.A. designation as long as he or she does not use it in conjunction with performing the attest functions listed in subsection (a) of K.S.A. 1998 Supp.1-316.

K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 1-318 allows the Board to seek an injunction against a person who has "engaged in any acts . . . which constitute . . . a violation of K.S.A. 1-316 or any valid rules and regulations of the board." Since K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 1-316(a) only applies to the performance of certain attest functions and subsection (b) allows certificate holders to use the C.P.A. designation without restriction, it is our opinion that K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 1-316 does not prohibit a certificate holder who does not have a permit from using the C.P.A. designation in conjunction with performing nonattest services for the public.

However, we must address whether a certificate holder who does not have a permit and who performs only nonattest services for the public while using the C.P.A. designation violates any "validrules and regulations of the Board." (Emphasis added.) If so, the Board can seek injunctive relief pursuant to K.S.A. 1998 Supp.1-318.

K.A.R. 74-4-1 provides, in part:

"(a) Each person who practices as a certified public accountant . . . as defined in K.A.R. 74-5-2, shall hold an active permit to practice."

K.A.R. 74-5-2(l) defines the "practice of public accountancy" as follows:

"`Practice of public accountancy' means offering to perform or performing for a client one or more types of services involving the use of the following, while stating or implying that one is a certified public accountant:

1. Accounting skills;

2. Auditing skills;

3. One or more types of management advisory services, including financial planning;

4. Preparation of tax returns; or

5. Furnishing of advice on tax matters." (Emphasis added.)

"`Certified public accountant' is a holder of a Kansas certificate."4

Administrative agencies, such as the Kansas Board of Accountancy, are creatures of statute whose power is dependent upon authorizing statutes.5 Any exercise of authority claimed by the agency must come from the statutes either expressly or by clear implication.6 Regulations that are inconsistent with the statutory power of an agency are void.7

In Kansas Human Rights Commission v. Topeka GolfAssociation8, the Kansas Court of Appeals concluded that a regulation seeking to restrict the statutory exemption of a "social association" exceeded the authority of the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Attorney General Opinion No., (kanag 1999).

Attorney General Opinion No. (Attorney General Opinion No.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kansas Human Rights Commission v. Topeka Golf Ass'n
869 P.2d 631 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1994)
Pork Motel, Corp. v. Kansas Department of Health & Environment
673 P.2d 1126 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1983)
Halford v. City of Topeka
677 P.2d 975 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1984)
Kansas Human Rights Commission v. Topeka Golf Ass'n
856 P.2d 515 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1993)