| The
timeline offers a quick overview of important
developments that occurred during the JofAs
first 100 years. Heres a closer look at
some of those events and the people behind them. The Revenue Act of 1909 and
ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. The
1909 law, the first of its kind, imposed a tax of
1% on all corporate income over $5,000. The
Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded the 1909
act, added an individual income tax beginning at
1% on taxable incomes over $3,000. Rep. Cordell
Hull (D-Tenn.), a key figure in drafting the 1913
income tax legislation, was advised by Robert H.
Montgomery, one of the professions
founders.
Uniform
Accounting. What is the
proper form of financial statements and audit
procedures? This question arose in the midst of
attempts to create uniform accounting procedures.
Early in the 1900s the Federal Trade Commission
and the Federal Reserve Board attempted to
involve themselves in this question. A federal
legislation committee of the American Institute
of Accountants (a predecessor of the AICPA),
headed by AIA leader Robert H. Montgomery and
including George O. May, set out to include the
profession in the debate. The resulting article,
Uniform Accounting, based on a
memorandum written by John C. Scobie for Price
Waterhouse & Co., ultimately was published in
the Federal Reserve Bulletin in 1917 and became
the initial guidance offered by a professional
accounting body.
Early CPA
examination. John J. Forbes, an
AICPA council member, suggested in 1917 that the
Institute correlate its membership exam with the
states, opening the door for the profession to
set its own uniform standards for the level of
knowledge required to become a CPA. When the AIA
board of examiners offered a standard exam to
state boards of examiners, three accepted:
Kansas, New Hampshire and Oregon. The exam came
on the heels of the first model accountancy bill,
published in 1916, as the profession attempted to
move toward uniformity in licensing. By 1937, 44
states were using the uniform exam; by 1952 all
jurisdictions were doing so.
Securities
legislation. The Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
mandated independent audits and created the SEC.
George O. May had lobbied for legislation
requiring audits. Arthur H. Carter had testified
before the Senate Committee on Banking and
Currency that financial statements used in
prospectuses should be certified by licensed,
objective accountants. The acts gave CPAs a
recognized role in protecting the capital markets
and secured the audit franchise for
practitioners.
The McKesson &
Robbins case. In 1937 McKesson
& Robbinss financial statements showed
assets of $19 million for a nonexistent drug
company and $1.8 million gross profit on fake
sales of $18 million. The publicity in the wake
of this massive fraud was the first public
scrutiny of accounting practices. Following
public hearings and actions of the profession and
the SEC, auditing procedures were expanded to
encompass confirmation of receivables, physical
inventory inspection, greater review of internal
controls and expanded auditor and management
responsibility. The Institute set up the
Committee on Auditing Procedure (later the
Auditing Standards Board) to establish guidance
in this area. Its first chairs were CPAs Patrick
W. R. Glover and Samuel J. Broad. The group
issued 54 statements on auditing procedures
through 1972.
SEC Accounting
Series Release no. 4. This April
1938 release followed the SEC decision not to
take on the role of setting accounting
principles, but rather to leave this
responsibility to the private sector. SEC chief
accountant Carman G. Blough, a CPA, and his
mentor at the agency, George C. Matthews, the
commissioner in charge of accounting, were
pivotal in influencing the decision. Authority to
set accounting principles essentially was
delegated to the AIA and its Committee on
Accounting Procedure, chaired by George O. May.
This committee later would become the Accounting
Principles Board, and its duties ultimately would
be taken over by the FASB.
The Continental
Vending case. This 1969 Supreme
Court decision established that relying on the
guidance in GAAP and APB Opinions was no longer a
shield against litigation. The decision led the
profession, among other steps, to create the
Study Group on the Establishment of Accounting
Principles (the Wheat committee), which
recommended creating the FASB, and the Study
Group on the Objectives of Financial Statements
(the Trueblood committee), which considered the
basic objectives of accounting statements.
The Moss and
Metcalf investigations. In 1976,
The Accounting Establishment: A Staff
Study, a report by a subcommittee headed by
Sen. Lee Metcalf (D-Mont.), accused the
profession of a lack of independence and failure
to protect the public interest after several
company collapses. Rep. John Moss (D-Calif.)
proposed an agency to regulate CPAs who audit
public companies. Wallace E. Olson, then
Institute president, was able to rally the
profession to counter the suggestions. Among
other steps, the profession in 1977 set up the
Public Oversight Board, headed by John J. McCloy,
to oversee peer review and quality control
inquiries in firms that audit public companies.
That same year, the AICPA council voted to create
the division for firms, which, among other
things, required peer review for firms that
belonged to the Institutes SEC and private
companies practice sections.
The Plan to
Restructure. In the 1980s, Reps.
John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
began investigations of the profession after
several corporate failures. One of the
professions responses was the Special
Committee on Standards of Professional Conduct,
headed by George Anderson during the tenure of
AICPA Chair Rholan E. Larson. In 1989, the AICPA
memberships endorsement of the Plan to
Restructure Professional Standards, based on the
Anderson committee recommendations, allowed a
change in AICPA bylaws to require that all
members who audit publicly held companies work
for a firm that belongs to the SECPS. Another
step was the National Commission on Fraudulent
Financial Reporting, chaired by James Treadway,
whose landmark 1987 report offered
recommendations on limiting fraud. Its work is
carried on today by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
Tort reform. The
Liability Crisis in the United States: Impact on
the Accounting Profession, a report in the
early 1990s by the largest accounting firms, came
at a time of soaring CPA professional liability
premiums. Pivotal in the battle to secure
legislation against frivolous lawsuits was the
AICPA Special Committee on Accountants
Legal Liability, headed by former Institute Chair
Ray Groves. Many of its recommendations were
included in the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, which replaced the concept of
joint and several liability with a proportionate
liability standard, limiting the damage for
accountants.
Reform in the
government arena. The Single Audit
Act of 1984 established guidelines for financial
statement audits of state and local governments.
The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and
subsequent reform legislation established
requirements intended to ensure the federal
government would have timely and reliable
financial information for decision making. Both
acts were passed during the tenure of Charles A.
Bowsher as U.S. Comptroller General.
The Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002. The act created the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to
oversee auditors of public companies and set
public company auditing standards, among other
steps. AICPA Chairs William F. Ezzell and James
G. Castellano and AICPA President and CEO Barry
Melancon worked to ensure the professions
voice was heard as the legislation was made final.

An
Eyewitness to Change
There was a lot going on during
that time, recalls former AICPA
president Philip B. Chenok, of the years
between 1980 and 1995 when he headed the
organization. At the heart of it
were our efforts to improve the quality
of practice. In Chenoks book, Foundations
for the Future: The AICPA from 1980 to
1995, he writes that upon taking
office, I was immediately bombarded
with a host of issues that threatened to
revolutionize the ways CPAs would conduct
themselves in the coming years. It
seemed to the Institutes leadership
that some of these issues could be
identified before they became major
problems. As a result, the AICPA
implemented a strategic planning process.
Its leaders developed a mission statement
emphasizing the need for CPAs to serve
the public interest and undertook a
number of initiatives. For example, the
Special Committee on Standards of
Professional Conduct developed a series
of proposals that were subsequently
approved by the membership, including
mandatory peer review, continuing
professional education, the 150-hour
requirement and more effective
enforcement of the Code of Professional
Conduct. Issues addressed during that
period included specialization, fraud
detection, legal liability, standards
overload, advertising, competitive
bidding, solicitation, contingent fees
and commissions.
Many of these
issues are still with us, Chenok
concluded in a recent interview.
|
|