[NeedsA75]

OK, here it goes…My CFO in CA has let his license go inactive but still uses “CPA” in his email signature, business cards, and company website. In CA you are supposed to use “CPA Inactive” if your license has lapsed.

What obligation do I have to report this and how serious is this? What would you guys do in my situation?

AUD - 96
BEC - 86
FAR - 76
REG - 92

PETH - 92
Licensed in California

 

[Anonymous]

From my understanding Canada used to have two designations, Chartered Professional Accountant (I think) and Chartered Accountant, for accountants and within the last 10 years or so merged them into the CA. If you passed either, you were automatically granted the CA designation. I could very well be wrong though. He may have passed the CPA in Canada and continues to use the designation. You could ask him about the process of passing the Chartered Accountant exams in Canada. It will give your CFO the opportunity to talk about himself and may clear up any questions you have.

[NeedsA75]

This person is native Californian and I know he didn't pass the exam in Canada.

They are also extremely intelligent and know exactly what they are doing and that they are misusing the designation. It's not an isolated incident either. Email signatures, company website, business cards, and social media. They are using the designation everywhere. As far as when you verbally introduce yourself, I'm not sure how that works but the rules are extremely clear about the designation you must use in CA when you go inactive.

I am concerned about being terminated for saying anything. This is how this person operates…speak out against them and you are gone…and if this person were in my position they would 100% report me..

Also, I've known about this issue for quite some time and recently it has garnered the attention of others within the company which is why I posted about it..

I'll let you guys know how it plays out. Thanks for the advice.

AUD - 96
BEC - 86
FAR - 76
REG - 92

PETH - 92
Licensed in California

 

[Duskfall]

@drumstick
CA = California, not Canada.

As a Canadian I can clear up the CPA issue for you. There used to be three designations: CA (Chartered Accountant), CGA (Certified General Accountant) and CMA (Certified Management Accountant). I know, confusing.

They all merged into one new designation: CPA (Chartered Professional Accountant). People with the old designations could petition to have the new CPA title, and they could also still go by the old titles for a certain amount of time. Soon, there will only be CPA in Canada and no one can now get the old titles unless they were partway through the process when the switch happened.

• FAR - 81 - JUN 7th, 2016
• BEC - 85 - AUG 23rd, 2016
• AUD- 80 - OCT 5th, 2016
• REG- 77 - DEC 2nd, 2016

 

FAR - 07/07/2016 - 81
BEC - 08/23/2016
AUD - 10/05/2016
REG - 11/23/2016

[mooseonloose]

I would definitely anonymously report him. I am tired of upper management believing they are above the law, they need to put in place.

AUD - NINJA in Training
BEC - NINJA in Training
FAR - NINJA in Training
REG - NINJA in Training

BEC: April
AUD: April
REG: July
FAR: Sept

[krstnam]

@NeedsA75 good question. I think it's also good that you are concerned about the ethics behind all of it too.

https://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/licensees/inactive.shtml <— according to that he should be putting inactive after but it doesn't say if it's an ethics violation.

Not in CA but I know somebody who was short on CPE hours due to crazy hours at the job. He called the state board, let them know about the predicament and explained he did not want to take the exams again – they told him to switch the license to inactive for a period of time – maybe it was a year or two, I don't remember then retake the ethics exam, reactivate and the CPE credit requirement starts over.

Do you think there's a way to address the situation with your CFO without coming off like you believe the omission was made with malice? There could be a reasonable explanation like what happened in the situation I mentioned above. If it was me, I wouldn't go to the state board, it seems like that is escalating things. I would go to the CFO directly and voice concerns and give him an opportunity to correct the error. He might not like what you are saying but he would probably respect you more as a professional. Otherwise, you go to the board and then maybe the next week your CFO gets a call from the state board and goes on a wild goose chase trying to figure out who went to the board and he probably ends up upset that he's got an employee who isn't comfortable discussing with him issues.

I'm going to be the person who says "I finished even though..." not the person who says "I didn't finish because..."

B - 77, 76

A - 57, 64, 72, 76!

R - 78, 72, 78!!! DONE

F - 54, 73, 71, 64, 69, 76!

[Anonymous]

I'm usually a very neutral person in any argument, but it is very very clear that @needsa75 has an axe to grind. He has obviously known about it for some time, as he stated. But he just woke up one day, with such moral outrage, that how dare his CFO be portraying himself as a CPA. Notice that not for a second, am I saying what the guy is doing is right. The AICPA code of conduct expressly forbids such behavior.

Clearly something happened between them, and now he figures he can have a gotcha moment. Worry about being a good accountant and get off the moral holier than thou high horse.

Since as his CFO's misrepresentation will cause another global financial crisis, how about go to the CEO or HR?

[Son]

@mooseonloose, not above the law obviously, but certainly above NeedsA75. As people have mentioned, they have their own way of “putting people in place” – promptly finding them a replacement.

@NeedsA75, I'd be more concerned about your own situation for two reasons. First, your management is involved in an unethical behavior, and you believe they know exactly what they are doing. What a great environment to be in – who can say they won't decide to alter fin statements next before the firm decides to raise more funding from investors. Second, you work in a place where you can't have an honest discussion with your supervisor. Might not be an issue at all for some, but might be a huge issue for others. On this, seems like the CPA license situation is just one of the reasons why you're not fond of your boss. I'd consider whether you want to report him/her because you believe you have an obligation to, or if there's more to it.

Lastly, are you 100% sure the license is inactive? Have you check CA's CPA website for this? Or is it an educated guess based on what you know?

AUD - passed
REG - passed
BEC - passed
FAR - passed

[So FAR So Good]

Agree with @cessna and @son. Just comes across a bit almighty/Hardo and like there's obviously another bone to pick here. Not defending the guy at all, because I'd be disappointed seeing that as well. But frankly, my gut reaction would be that I want nothing to do with him and would just leave, not that I want to be the CPA police.

AUD - 91
BEC - 85
FAR - 91
REG - 86

.

F - 91 (6/5/2016)
A - 7/30/2016
R - 10/8/2016
B - 12/10/2016

[NeedsA75]

I really don't know if its worth responding to cessna at this point, he's coming across as a troll…I didn't just wake up one day and have an axe to grind. Like I said, other people have recently become aware of what this person is doing and this issue is now garnering attention and I came onto this board to see if anyone had any direct experience with a similar situation. I'm not sure why you are attacking me when this person is clearly in the wrong…seems like you should have gone into politics instead of accounting..

Also, the CFO doubles as the head of HR which further complicates the issue and is why I'm hesitant to voice my concern directly with this person.

For the record, I was planning on calling the state board to get an idea of how serious this issue is. I am not planning on reporting this person if the state board says this is no big deal…If the CBA doesn't care, then I don't care either.

And yes, I looked up the license and I'm 100% sure its inactive.

AUD - 96
BEC - 86
FAR - 76
REG - 92

PETH - 92
Licensed in California

 

[Missy]

At the end of the day what your CFO is doing is wrong but I believe firmly that the CBA's response will depend on what he gains from it. If your start up is in industry or technology and truth be told nobody gives a crap whether the CFO is a CPA or not (like me, I am a licensed CPA but that only helped me get the job when I talk to customers they don't care what my credentials are as long as they get their stuff) I'm guessing the CBA won't do much. If on the other hand its being used to mislead your clients or customers into choosing your company over another company and someone is cashing in financially over the deception the cba would likely come down harder.

So I guess my question to you is aside from principal and integrity, what else is being harmed? Would your company lose business if he indicated inactive?

Not disagreeing with you but wondering why you'd stay somewhere that has management that you mistrust?

Old timer,  A71'er since 2010.

Finance manager/HR manager

 

 

Licensed Massachusetts Non Reporting CPA since 2012
Finance/Admin/HR Manager

[NeedsA75]

I'm not planning on staying here much longer. It's really hard for me to speculate the effects to our business if he used the inactive status or dropped CPA altogether. However, this is the CFO and not a staff level accountant…They are dealing with potential investors and banks to acquire funding to grow the business so you can make your own judgement on whether this issue is relevant or not.

AUD - 96
BEC - 86
FAR - 76
REG - 92

PETH - 92
Licensed in California

 

[SaveBandit]

You mentioned taking it to the compliance committee. I would not go that route. It will not reflect well upon you. Respect the chain first.

See what the state board says. Even if you feel the need to report it, I still wouldn't recommend squealing on someone without at least first addressing it with that person first. You talk about ethics a lot, but you don't want to approach the CFO about it first, which would be the right thing to do. You said this was a small place, so if you do it anonymously, I promise you that they will figure it out anyway.

How long have you known about this? What does “some time” even mean? If you have known about it for a long time, say a year, and done nothing, you aren't really helping yourself out by reporting it now. You probably don't have an axe to grind, but if you've held onto this info for a while and done nothing about it, it certainly LOOKS like you may have an axe to grind.

Either way, it sounds like you need to start looking for other options.

AUD - 94
BEC - 86
FAR - 85
REG - 90

If you pray enough, you can turn yourself into a cat person.

4 for 4

FAR 85
AUD 94
BEC 86
REG 90

[NeedsA75]

I've known he's inactive for ~6 months but wasn't aware of the “inactive” status that should be used until just last week.

Again, he is CFO/HR and I know if I address the issue with him I'll be showing myself the door. I may just wait until I'm ready to leave and address it with him at that point.

Regardless, it doesn't sound like anyone has any direct experience with a similar situation so we are all just speculating how the state board would view this issue anyways.

AUD - 96
BEC - 86
FAR - 76
REG - 92

PETH - 92
Licensed in California

 

[Anonymous]

@duskfall – thank you for clearing that up for me!

[Skynet]

How do we know that the designation really stands for “Can’t Produce Anything” ?

AUD - 90
BEC - 78
FAR - 84
REG - 87

World Domination Plan

Phase I : Pass CPA Exams - Complete
Phase II : Megan Fox - In Progress
Phase III : Megan Fox & Scarlett Johansson Lingerie Pillow Fight
Phase IV : Form the new Charlie's Angels with Megan Fox, Scarlett Johansson, & Gal Gadot
Phase V : TBD

BEC : 78
REG : 87
FAR : 84
AUD : 90

World Domination Plan

Phase I : Pass CPA Exams - Complete
Phase II : Megan Fox - Initiated
Phase III : Bring back 8-Tracks
Phase IV : Megan Fox & Scarlett Johansson Lingerie Pillow Fight
Phase V : TBA

[Author]

Replies