Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Private Equity topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board of Accountancy votes to delay legislative change on private‑equity firm ownership, seeks legal advice

Board of Accountancy · December 27, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Oregon Board of Accountancy agreed not to pursue statutory changes in 2025 on private‑equity and alternative practice structures, asking staff to get legal advice and draft interim guidance for firms while the national debate continues.

The Oregon Board of Accountancy on Dec. 18 directed staff to seek legal advice and prepare interim guidance rather than push immediate statutory changes to how private equity and alternative practice structures (APS) are treated in state law.

The full board discussed a lengthy Laws & Rules Committee report that recommended maintaining the existing 51% CPA ownership requirement for public accounting firms. Jason Orr, chair of the laws and rules committee, told members the committee’s recommendation “support[s] maintaining 51% ownership” as the default public‑protection standard while work continues at the national level.

Board members and staff reviewed the history behind the 51% rule and warned the landscape is uneven across U.S. jurisdictions. Executive Director Martin Piccione said national organizations are still debating exposure drafts and cautioned the board not to move hastily: “Now the expectation is that we follow the direction of the ethics commission,” he said, describing a recent uptick in enforcement expectations.

Rather than drafting a bill for the short 2025 legislative session, the board asked the Laws & Rules Committee and staff to return in February 2025 with legal analysis and clearer policy options, and to prepare a public message for firms in the interim so staff can respond consistently to inquiries. The decision aims to avoid rushed statutory language with unintended consequences for tax practice, registration, and consumer protection.

Members emphasized two practical risks: (1) a change that left certain tax or consulting operations unregulated or unable to register as firms, and (2) market disruption if firms are left uncertain about compliance. The board’s action was procedural direction, not a change of law; the full legislative question remains open for further study at subsequent meetings.