A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 54.1-4400 and 54.1-4409.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Board of Accountancy; licensing requirements; inactive and emeritus status.
HB228 amends Virginia’s accountancy laws to update definitions used by the Board of Accountancy and to revise licensing rules for CPAs. The bill clarifies terms such as “license,” “licensee,” “practice of public accounting,” “providing services to the public,” and related accountancy concepts, aligning the statutory language with current practice and interstate licensing structures.
The bill also creates explicit “Inactive” and “Emeritus” CPA license statuses for Virginia licensees who are no longer providing public or employer-based accounting services. To qualify, a licensee must be currently licensed in Virginia, not under investigation or disciplinary action, and meet minimum experience and age thresholds set in the bill, while the Board is given authority to establish additional qualifications and procedures. The measure further directs the Board to adopt implementing regulations within 280 days and to issue guidance on how active and inactive licensees may accurately describe their CPA status in autobiographical or biographical materials.
HB228 would amend §§ 54.1-4400 and 54.1-4409.1 of the Code of Virginia, affecting the statutory framework governing CPA licensure, title use, and practice privileges. It expands and modernizes definitions used by the Board of Accountancy and authorizes the Board to establish new inactive and emeritus license categories, which would likely affect current and former CPAs, the Board’s licensing administration, and how license status is represented in professional materials. The bill also requires new regulations and guidance to implement the changes.
The available context suggests generally favorable or noncontroversial treatment of the bill. There are no recorded committee transcripts or roll-call votes showing opposition, and the bill was incorporated into General Laws (HB870-Carroll) by voice vote, which typically indicates broad procedural acceptance. The absence of recorded dissent suggests the measure was viewed as a technical or administrative update rather than a contested policy change.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The main policy choices embedded in the bill are the Board’s authority to set additional qualifications for inactive and emeritus status and the requirement that licensees not be under investigation or discipline to qualify. Another possible issue is the bill’s clarification that the Board may not deny CPA title privileges solely because of a criminal conviction, but no opposition or debate is provided in the record.