Colorado State Bd. of Accountancy v. Raisch, 96SC579
| Decision Date | 26 May 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 96SC579,96SC579 |
| Citation | 960 P.2d 102 |
| Parties | 98 CJ C.A.R. 2651 The COLORADO STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, Petitioner, v. ZAVERAL BOOSALIS RAISCH, a registered certified public accounting firm, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Martha Phillips Allbright, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richard A. Westfall, Solicitor General, Merrill Shields, Deputy Attorney General, Linda A. Siderius, First Assistant Attorney General, Victoria R. Mandell, Assistant Attorney General, Regulatory Law Section, Denver, for Petitioner.
Isaacson Rosenbaum Woods & Levy, P.C., Sheldon E. Friedman, McKenna & Cuneo, L.L.P., Scott S. Evans, Denver, for Respondent.
Kevin O. O'Brien, Boulder, for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Colorado, Inc.
Rothgerber, Appel, Powers & Johnson, LLP, Frederick J. Baumann, JoAnn L. Vogt, Denver, for Amicus Curiae American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
Allen & Pinnix, P.A., Noel L. Allen, Raleigh, for Amicus Curiae National Association of State Boards of Accountancy.
The Colorado State Board of Accountancy (Board) appeals from a decision by the court of appeals allowing the accounting firm of Zaveral Boosalis Raisch (ZBR) to use the accountant-client privilege, see § 13-90-107(1)(f)(I), 5 C.R.S. (1997), to refuse compliance, absent the client's consent, with a subpoena issued by the Board. The Denver District Court interpreted exercise of the Board's subpoena power, see § 12-2-126(1)(a), 4 C.R.S. (1997), as an exception to the accountant-client privilege. In the absence of express legislative language creating an exception, the court of appeals declined to imply one. See Colorado State Bd. of Accountancy v. Zaveral Boosalis Raisch, 931 P.2d 498, 500 (Colo.App.1996). 1 We agree and affirm.
The Board received an unsigned letter alleging improprieties in the accounting practices of ZBR in connection with two casinos. The writer of this letter accused ZBR of violating accepted accounting principles and of preparing deficient auditing statements which investors and lenders relied upon to their detriment and which the Colorado Gaming Commission also relied on in issuing gaming licenses. In addition, the writer alleged that federal withholding taxes for the businesses were not paid, that Colorado unemployment taxes were not paid, that gaming returns had not been filed or paid, and that ZBR was responsible for these failures.
The Board initiated an investigation into ZBR's accounting practices and issued a subpoena duces tecum to ZBR requiring the production of ZBR's files. The subpoena applied to:
all tax returns, K-1's, audit reports and opinions, financial statements, notes, workpapers, correspondence with the client, the IRS and Colorado Department of Revenue, reports to the Gaming Division, calculations, and all other documentation used or prepared in connection with these engagements.
When ZBR refused to comply with the subpoena, the Board sought an enforcement order from the district court pursuant to section 12-2-126(1)(a). ZBR objected to the subpoena and filed a Motion For More Definite Statement with the district court. ZBR argued that the Board had not specified whether or not ZBR's clients had waived the accountant-client privilege and, without such a waiver, ZBR could not produce documents protected by the privilege because the privilege is "unqualified." 2
The Board argued to the district court that subpoenas directed to the accountant's work product and underlying client documents are essential to the Board's ability to investigate Certified Public Accountant (CPA) compliance with the act and Board regulations. The Board invoked its rule of professional conduct requiring CPA compliance with subpoenas and Board investigations.
In concluding that the statute providing the Board with the subpoena power operates as an exception to the accountant-client privilege in Colorado, the district court reasoned that requiring the Board to obtain client consent to a CPA subpoena would "severely hamper[ ]" the ability of the Board to carry out its statutory investigatory and disciplinary duties.
The court of appeals held that a court, in the absence of statutory authority, cannot "balance the interest of the Board and the interest of the client in determining the applicability of the privilege"; client consent to a Board subpoena seeking confidential accountant-client communications must be obtained. Zaveral Boosalis Raisch, 931 P.2d at 499.
This case presents for our review a privilege statute which is absolute on its face and a state licensing statute granting an absolute and unqualified subpoena power to the Board. Neither statute expressly addresses the situation presented by this case--whether or not an accountant must comply with a Board subpoena for accountant work papers and client documents if the Board has not secured the client's waiver of the privilege for these purposes.
We hold that creation of an exception to the accountant-client privilege for Board investigatory subpoenas is a matter for legislative determination. While we recognize that the Board acts in the public interest in regulating CPAs, we decline to imply the existence of a missing statutory provision.
In 1959 the General Assembly created the Board in order to "insure that persons who hold themselves out as possessing professional qualifications as accountants are, in fact, qualified to render accounting services of a professional nature." Ch. 32, sec. 1, § 2-2-1, 1959 Colo. Sess. Laws 128 (now codified at § 12-2-101, 4 C.R.S. (1997)). In its present form, the statute governing the Board contains provisions for regulating and licensing CPAs. See § 12-2-101(1), 4 C.R.S. (1997).
The Board consists of seven members, appointed by the governor, five of whom are CPAs. See § 12-2-103. The Board has the power and duty, among other matters, to issue, renew, revoke, or suspend certificates. See § 12-2-104. In addition, the Board has the power "on its own motion or on the complaint of any person," to investigate CPAs accused of violating the provisions of the act. § 12-2-126(1)(a). In order to carry out this investigative authority, the legislature gave "the board or any member thereof" the power to "issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents ... in connection with any investigation under this section." Id.
"In order to establish and maintain a high standard of integrity in the profession of public accounting," § 12-2-104(1)(c), the Board also has the power and duty to promulgate rules of professional conduct which govern and control "every person practicing as a certified public accountant in the state." § 12-2-104(1)(c). Board rule 7.7 requires CPAs to comply with legally enforceable subpoenas. See Board of Accountancy Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.7(B.) (2.), 3 C.C.R. 705-1 (). The rule further provides that the submission of client information to the Board which is "disclosed as part of the process of initiating a complaint with, or responding to an inquiry made by, the Board" does not violate the rule's provision requiring confidentiality of client information. See Rule 7.7(B.) (5.).
In the case before us, the Board used its subpoena power, invoking its rule requiring CPA compliance, in order to compel the production of documents by ZBR regarding its accounting work for the two casinos. In order to fully investigate the allegations raised by the letter, the Board considered review of this information to be necessary. As amicus American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) puts it, "at the center of almost any state board investigation into a CPA engagement will be the CPA's workpapers, for it is only through careful review of the workpapers that practice quality may be effectively assessed."
Despite the essential nature of this information to the Board's inquiry and the Board rule requiring CPA compliance, ZBR refused to comply with the subpoena, asserting that Colorado's privilege statute requires client consent.
The accountant-client privilege has existed in the state of Colorado since the legislature first codified it in 1929. See ch. 185, sec. 1, § 6563, 1929 Sess. Laws 642, 644 (now codified at § 13-90-107, 5 C.R.S. (1997)). In its current form, the relevant portion of the privilege reads as follows:
(1) There are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence and to preserve it inviolate; therefore, a person shall not be examined as a witness in the following cases:
...
(f)(I) A certified public accountant shall not be examined without the consent of his client as to any communication made by the client to him in person or through the media of books of account and financial records or his advice, reports, or working papers given or made thereon in the course of professional employment; nor shall a secretary, stenographer, clerk, or assistant of a certified public accountant be examined without the consent of the client concerned concerning any fact, the knowledge of which he has acquired in such capacity.
§ 13-90-107(1)(f)(I), 5 C.R.S. (1997). This privilege statute places Colorado in line with the majority of jurisdictions which protect the confidentiality of communications between an accountant and a client. 3
By protecting the confidentiality of communications between an accountant and a client, the legislature intended to encourage "full and frank communication between certified public accountants and their clients so that professional advice may be given on the basis of complete information, free from the consequences or the apprehension of disclosure." Neusteter v. District Court, 675 P.2d 1, 5 (Colo.1984).
However, because testimonial privileges are ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colorado Educ. Ass'n v. Rutt
...we are not free to imply limitations or qualifications that are not found in article XXVIII. See Colo. State Bd. of Accountancy v. Zaveral Boosalis Raisch, 960 P.2d 102, 106-07 (Colo.1998) (holding that in the context of the accountant-client privilege, the statutory phrase "any communicati......
-
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC
...498, 500 (Colo.App.1996) (“The term ‘any’ is an inclusive term often used synonymously with the terms ‘every’ and ‘all.’ ”), aff'd,960 P.2d 102 (Colo.1998). Federal antitrust cases “although not controlling, are entitled to careful scrutiny in resolving issues arising under Colorado's antit......
-
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC, Court of Appeals No. 08CA2009 (Colo. App. 1/7/2010)
...500 (Colo. App. 1996) ("The term `any' is an inclusive term often used synonymously with the terms `every' and `all.'"), aff'd, 960 P.2d 102 (Colo. 1998). Federal antitrust cases "although not controlling, are entitled to careful scrutiny in resolving issues arising under Colorado's antitru......
-
K9shrink, LLC v. Ridgewood Meadows Water & Homeowners Ass'n
...between the client and the certified public accountant and the accountant's employees specified in the statute”), aff'd,960 P.2d 102 (Colo.1998). We next consider what effect the phrase “such as,” followed by examples, has on the preceding term, “any.” We agree with the trial court that the......
-
ARTICLE 90 WITNESSES
...the general assembly intended to qualify the privilege. Colo. State Bd. of Accountancy v. Raisch, 931 P.2d 498 (Colo. App. 1996), aff'd, 960 P.2d 102 (Colo. 1998). The privilege created by this section is not the privilege of the accountant but that of the client. Weck v. District Court, 15......
-
A Profession on the Threshold: the Bar Considers Multiple Discipline Practices
...Brown v. Superior Court, 670 P.2d 725 (Ariz. 1983) (en banc); Colorado, Colorado State Bd. of Accountancy v. Zaveral Boorsalis Raisch, 960 P.2d 102 (Colo. 1998) (en banc); Florida, Cone v. Culverhouse, 687 So. 2d 888 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997); Georgia, Roberts v. Chaple, 369 S.E.2d 482 (Ga. Ct. ......
-
Chapter 7 - § 7.5 • POTENTIAL CLAIMS OF THE OWNER
...Stephens Indus. v. Haskins & Sells, 438 F.2d 357 (10th Cir. 1971); see also Colo. State Bd. of Accountancy v. Zaveral Boosalis Raisch, 960 P.2d 102 (Colo. 1998).[107] Town of Alma, 10 P.3d at 1263 (citing Bebo Constr. Co., 990 P.2d at 83 (attorney-client relationship creates independent dut......
-
Privileges — Rule 501
...decision, but the privilege belongs to the client, not the accountant. Colorado State Bd. of Accountancy v. Zaveral Boosalis Raisch, 960 P.2d 102 (Colo. 1998). ○ Exploratory interviews of an accounting firm for divorce valuation issues by one spouse did not disqualify the accounting firm fr......