Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disciplinary Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves two settlement agreements: firm-permit lapse and unsigned joint return filing
Summary
The Connecticut Board of Accountancy accepted two settlement agreements in separate enforcement matters: one imposing a $2,000 penalty for practicing without a firm permit and one imposing a $1,500 penalty plus remedial requirements for filing a joint tax return without the taxpayer's signature.
The Connecticut Board of Accountancy on June 30 accepted two settlement agreements resolving separate disciplinary matters referred to the Department of Consumer Protection legal division.
Both matters were brought to the board by legal staff and addressed alleged lapses in licensing and professional conduct that the department said violated state statutes and professional standards.
Legal-division staff told the board that case 2020-428 involving Ms. Ocellos (listed in the department file as Oscelo/Ocellos) showed the respondent formed an accounting firm in 2020 and operated the firm without a required firm permit for approximately four years. Staff said the respondent obtained a firm permit after the DCP inquiry but that the department alleged violations of Connecticut General Statutes 20-281e and 20-281g. The settlement imposes a $2,000 civil penalty. As legal staff summarized, "she promptly got a firm permit" after contact from the department.
In a separate matter, case 2022-93 concerned a New Haven CPA who prepared and filed a couple's joint federal tax return in 2021 during a contested divorce without obtaining the complainant's signature on Form 8879 or the return. Legal staff said the CPA conceded the signature was not obtained but indicated a copy had been sent to the complainant's attorney and the practitioner believed the filing was acceptable. The department alleged violations of the Internal Revenue Code, the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, and Connecticut regulation 22-880-15c. The settlement requires the practitioner to train staff on the firm's tax-filing procedures (citing IRS guidance the firm used), complete four CPE credits in tax ethics and pay a $1,500 penalty.
Board members questioned causes and remedies. Kat (DCP staff) noted that many solo practitioners are unaware that a separate firm permit is required in Connecticut and said the law and guidance are on the department website. Robert Day moved to accept the first finding; Pete seconded and the board approved the settlement. A separate motion to accept the second settlement was moved and seconded, and the board approved that agreement as well.
The board's actions resolved two enforcement files by accepting negotiated settlements that include monetary penalties and remedial compliance steps rather than referral to further proceedings.
The board directed staff to ensure the department's website and outreach include clear information on firm-permit requirements for solo practitioners and to confirm the complainant-matter settlement includes the required follow-up documentation from the respondent.
Ending: The board's legal-division docket will return to the board as further matters or follow-up reports arise; staff said outreach and website notices will be considered to reduce similar licensing misunderstandings.
