[Anonymous]

Quick question about CPA firm ownership. The Becker book states that in order to designate the firm as “xx, Certified Public Acountants,” all owners need to be CPAs. Then there is a subsection titled ownership of CPA firms and states that a majority of the owners (over 50% or 2/3 to be safe) must own (in voting rigs and financial interests) the firm. However, it states non CPAs can be owners but cannot hold themselves out to be CPAs and should own their own equity. This sounds like it contradicts that all owners should be CPAs. Can someone explain this to me. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

I thought in order to own a firm that has CPA in the title, all of the owners had to be CPA's, but I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

I thought in order to own a firm that has CPA in the title, all of the owners had to be CPA's, but I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anyone else have any idea? I though the Becker textbook was very contradictory on this.

[Anonymous]

Anyone else have any idea? I though the Becker textbook was very contradictory on this.

[littlenumberrobot]

From my memory it was okay if Non-CPA's were owners but they cannot have anything to do with accounting. Try checking with Wiley. I also check any review course against Wiley. It has been a long time for me, but this sticks out in my mind.

CA CPA - All because of the journey listed below
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAR - 53('10), 8/25/12 79 PASSED!
REG - 66('11), 69('12), 12/06/12 77 PASSED!!
BEC - 58('10), 74('12), 01/05/13 77 PASSED!!!
AUD - 43('11), 66('12), 69('13), 74('13) 7/29/13 85 PASSED!!!!!

(Combinations of Roger, Yaeger, Wiley Book, Wiley TB, & NINJA Notes)

Ethics 90%

[littlenumberrobot]

From my memory it was okay if Non-CPA's were owners but they cannot have anything to do with accounting. Try checking with Wiley. I also check any review course against Wiley. It has been a long time for me, but this sticks out in my mind.

CA CPA - All because of the journey listed below
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAR - 53('10), 8/25/12 79 PASSED!
REG - 66('11), 69('12), 12/06/12 77 PASSED!!
BEC - 58('10), 74('12), 01/05/13 77 PASSED!!!
AUD - 43('11), 66('12), 69('13), 74('13) 7/29/13 85 PASSED!!!!!

(Combinations of Roger, Yaeger, Wiley Book, Wiley TB, & NINJA Notes)

Ethics 90%

[Anonymous]

Looks like Non-CPAs can be owners, but then the firm could not have Certified Public Accountants in the firms name. Must be 100% CPA ownership to have it in the name. At least that's the way it reads to me.

[Anonymous]

Looks like Non-CPAs can be owners, but then the firm could not have Certified Public Accountants in the firms name. Must be 100% CPA ownership to have it in the name. At least that's the way it reads to me.

[Anonymous]

So non cpas can be owners as long as they are not involved in accounting? But if this is the case, the firm cannot designate itself as “xx, cpas”?

Or the firm needs to be owned by more than 50 % cpas but cannot refer to itself as cpas unless it is 100 %?

[Anonymous]

So non cpas can be owners as long as they are not involved in accounting? But if this is the case, the firm cannot designate itself as “xx, cpas”?

Or the firm needs to be owned by more than 50 % cpas but cannot refer to itself as cpas unless it is 100 %?

[Anonymous]

what dbmcubs21 said is right. the only way a firm can call itself “xyz, cpa” is if all the equity owners (partners) are CPA's. it is ok for non-cpa's to be owners, but then the firm CANNOT call itself “xyz, cpa.”

[Anonymous]

what dbmcubs21 said is right. the only way a firm can call itself “xyz, cpa” is if all the equity owners (partners) are CPA's. it is ok for non-cpa's to be owners, but then the firm CANNOT call itself “xyz, cpa.”

[stoleway]

Non-owners can be involved in both the accounting and engagement aspect.

Do not call your firm xx,CPAs when some of the owners are not CPAs.

For eg, 3 people come together and set up an accounting firm and 2 are CPAs but the third person is not, you cannot call your firm XXX, CPAs. Most business owners in this situation will set up something like XXX, PC or XXX, LLC.

The owners can hire anyone to do accounting or help with engagements.

I'm pretty sure this is the standard but I stand to be correced on any of these:)

REG -63│ 84!!
BEC- 59│70│ 71 │78!
AUD- 75!
FAR- 87!

Mass-CPA

[stoleway]

Non-owners can be involved in both the accounting and engagement aspect.

Do not call your firm xx,CPAs when some of the owners are not CPAs.

For eg, 3 people come together and set up an accounting firm and 2 are CPAs but the third person is not, you cannot call your firm XXX, CPAs. Most business owners in this situation will set up something like XXX, PC or XXX, LLC.

The owners can hire anyone to do accounting or help with engagements.

I'm pretty sure this is the standard but I stand to be correced on any of these:)

REG -63│ 84!!
BEC- 59│70│ 71 │78!
AUD- 75!
FAR- 87!

Mass-CPA

[Tncincy]

Well, this is an interesting conversation……..especially for non-CPA's (lol)

Non-CPA's can have a minority (49%) ownership in a firm, however, they CANNOT use a non CPA in the name of the firm, neither can they be listed in the yellow pages or similar under CPA heading. They also must be active participants in the firm, not a silent partner.

The name(s) of non-CPA owner(s) may not be used in the name of a CPA firm. The CPA

firm name may not use the terms “and associates” or “and company” unless the CPA firm

has a minimum of two CPA partners in addition to the non-CPA partner(s).

A CPA firm with non-CPA ownership is permitted to practice through a partnership,

limited liability partnership, professional corporation, or professional limited liability

company.

It begins with a 75
Been here too long as a cheerleader....ready to pass

[Author]

Replies