An Act 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.
SB605 updates Virginia’s accountancy law to create and define new licensing statuses for certified public accountants who are no longer actively practicing: “Inactive” and “Emeritus.” The bill directs the Virginia Board of Accountancy to establish the qualifications and process for these statuses, while setting minimum eligibility thresholds in statute. For inactive status, a licensee must have held an active CPA license for at least five years. For emeritus status, a licensee must have held an active or inactive CPA license for at least 15 years and be at least 60 years old, or have held such a license for at least 30 years.
The bill also clarifies when a person must hold a Virginia license to use the CPA title in Virginia, including rules for in-state practitioners and out-of-state license holders operating under practice privilege provisions. It authorizes the Board to set methods, fees, and continuing education requirements for issuance, renewal, or reinstatement of a Virginia license, and it preserves the Board’s authority to deny the privilege of using the CPA title when a person is unfit or unsuited, while stating that a criminal conviction alone cannot be the sole basis for denial. In addition, the bill requires the Board to issue guidance allowing former licensees to make biographical and historically accurate references to prior CPA licensure.
The bill’s impact is primarily on the regulatory framework governing CPAs in Virginia. It amends definitions in the accountancy chapter and expands the Board’s rulemaking authority to implement the new inactive and emeritus categories. It also affects former licensees, current licensees seeking reduced-status credentials, and out-of-state CPAs who rely on Virginia’s practice privilege rules. The Board must promulgate implementing regulations within 280 days of enactment and publish guidance on prior licensure references by September 30, 2026.
Overall, the bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate and House unanimously or near-unanimously at each recorded stage, including committee reports and final passage, with no recorded dissenting votes. The lack of committee transcript material suggests there was little public dispute over the measure, and the voting history indicates consensus around modernizing licensing categories and clarifying how former CPAs may describe their credentials.
Any potential points of contention are limited and appear to center on the scope of the Board’s discretion and the standards for using the CPA title, especially the balance between consumer protection, licensure enforcement, and flexibility for retired or inactive professionals. The bill’s explicit instruction that criminal conviction alone cannot be the sole reason to deny the privilege of using the CPA title may also be notable, though no recorded opposition is shown in the available history.
SB605 amends §§ 54.1-4400 and 54.1-4409.1 of the Code of Virginia to add statutory definitions and licensing categories for inactive and emeritus CPAs, clarify licensure and practice-privilege rules, and direct the Board of Accountancy to adopt implementing regulations. It affects CPA licensees, former licensees, firms, and out-of-state practitioners, while also requiring Board guidance on truthful references to prior CPA licensure.
The recorded legislative history shows strong, bipartisan support and no opposition votes at any stage. The bill moved through committee and floor votes unanimously or nearly unanimously, suggesting the measure was viewed as a routine professional licensing update rather than a controversial policy change.
No significant contention is evident in the available record. The only potentially sensitive issues are the Board’s discretion to determine who is fit to use the CPA title, the rule that a criminal conviction alone cannot be the sole basis for denial, and how former CPAs may describe their prior licensure. However, the unanimous votes and absence of transcript debate indicate these issues did not generate visible opposition.