HB657 revises Maryland’s licensing standards for certified public accountants by changing both the education and experience pathways an applicant may use to qualify for a CPA license. The bill replaces the current 150-semester-hour model with three alternative routes: a master’s degree with an accounting concentration plus one year of practical work experience; a bachelor’s degree plus 30 additional semester credit hours in accounting plus one year of practical work experience; or a bachelor’s degree with an accounting concentration plus two years of practical work experience. It also updates the examination eligibility language so that applicants must hold at least a baccalaureate degree that meets Board requirements, rather than the prior 120-semester-hour threshold.
The bill also revises the practical work experience requirement by extending the allowable period for completing the experience from three years to six years and by specifying different hour totals depending on which education pathway the applicant uses. Applicants seeking licensure under the first two pathways must complete 2,000 hours of approved experience, while those using the bachelor’s-degree-only pathway must complete 4,000 hours. The experience must still involve accounting, attest, advisory, tax, or consulting work and be performed under the supervision of a licensed CPA or another Board-approved qualified professional.
In terms of state law, HB657 amends Sections 2-302 and 2-303 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article, which govern CPA licensure qualifications in Maryland. The bill would broaden the range of acceptable educational credentials and create a more flexible, tiered licensure structure for aspiring CPAs. It is set to take effect October 1, 2026, and would apply prospectively to future applicants for CPA licensure.
The available context shows no recorded committee testimony or vote history, so there is no documented public sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to modernize licensure pathways and may be viewed as responsive to workforce and pipeline concerns in the accounting profession. Because no discussion transcript is available, there is also no specific evidence of opposition or support from stakeholders in the record provided.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on whether the bill lowers, raises, or simply restructures entry standards for the profession. Supporters may favor the added flexibility and multiple pathways to licensure, while critics could question whether the new alternatives maintain the same level of rigor as the prior 150-credit-hour requirement. The main affected parties are CPA candidates, accounting firms, employers, higher education institutions, and the Maryland Board of Public Accountancy.
HB657 would amend Maryland’s CPA licensure statutes in the Business Occupations and Professions Article by replacing the existing education-and-experience framework with three alternative qualification tracks and by adjusting the amount and timing of required practical work experience. It would directly affect applicants for CPA licensure, the Board’s evaluation of educational equivalency, and institutions that offer accounting programs or credit-hour pathways.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no formal evidence of legislative sentiment in the materials. The bill text suggests a generally reform-oriented approach aimed at expanding and clarifying licensure pathways, which may indicate support for workforce flexibility and professional access, but any opposition or endorsement is not documented here.
The likely contention is whether the bill’s new pathways preserve the same professional standards as the current 150-credit-hour model. Supporters would likely emphasize flexibility, reduced barriers, and a stronger CPA pipeline, while opponents may worry about dilution of educational rigor or inconsistency in preparation. Another possible issue is the Board’s discretion in determining accounting equivalencies and approving institutions, which could raise concerns about implementation and uniformity.