Activity Review

North Carolina State

Board of Certified Public

Accountant Examiners

1101 Oberlin Road, Suite 104, Post Office Box 12827, Raleigh, NC 27605- 2827 ( 919) 733- 4222 No. 5 2002

Inside this issue...

Board Meetings ............................... 3

Certificates Issued .......................... 5

Contact the Board ........................... 7

Disciplinary Actions................... 2, 6

Inactive Status ................................ 7

Junk E- Mail...................................... 6

Notice of Address Change ............ 8

Reclassifications ............................. 6

www. state. nc. us/ cpabd

The New Audit Documentation Requirements: SAS No. 96

Working papers, which often consist of

electronic files and have been renamed

“ audit documentation,” are the subject

of new guidance from the Auditing

Standards Board ( ASB) of the Ameri-can

Institute of CPAs ( AICPA).

Issued in January 2002, Statement

on Auditing Standards ( SAS) No. 96,

Audit Documentation, provides general

guidance on the nature and extent of

documentation necessary to support

an auditor’s report and specific docu-mentation

guidance for several other

SASs.

Effective for audits of financial

statements for periods beginning on or

after May 15, 2002, SAS No. 96 super-sedes

SAS No. 41, Working Papers.

SAS No. 96 reaffirms the objectives

in SAS No. 41 that audit documenta-tion

serves mainly to provide the “ prin-cipal

support for the auditor’s report,”

and to help an auditor conduct and

supervise an audit.

Because it is not feasible for audi-tors

to document all the evidence they

obtain and conclusions they reach on

an engagement, the ASB carried for-ward

a SAS No. 41 footnote that stated

there is no intention to imply the audi-tor

would be precluded from support-ing

his or her report by other means “ in

addition to [ audit documentation].”

This enables auditors, when neces-sary,

to supplement or clarify informa-tion

in the audit documentation, which

itself must meet all the new statement’s

requirements.

A CPA firm may want to use audit

documentation for purposes other than

those stated in SAS No. 96.

For example, the firm may choose

to examine audit documentation to de-termine

whether an engagement com-plied

with the firm’s quality control

policies and procedures. Also, certain

third parties may want to use the docu-mentation

for other purposes.

However, given the overall objec-tive

of a GAAS audit— to express an

opinion on the fairness with which the

financial statements present, in all ma-terial

respects, the financial position,

results of operations, and cash flows in

conformity with GAAP— the ASB de-veloped

guidance that would satisfy

the needs of those parties involved in

the performance, supervision, and re-view

of the audit.

Under the new guidance, the docu-mentation

should be sufficient to en-able

engagement team members with

supervision and review responsibili-ties

to understand the evidence obtained

and the nature, timing, extent and re-sults

of auditing procedures performed;

and indicate the engagement team

member( s) “ who performed and re-viewed

the work.”

For the purposes of these require-ments,

the ASB intended that auditors

consider any applicable second- part-ner

reviewer a member of the engage-ment

team.

SAS No. 96 introduces factors the

auditor must consider in determining

the nature and extent of documenta-tion

for a particular audit area or proce-dure.

Although the auditor exercises pro-fessional

judgment in making this de-termination,

he or she must take into

account each of the factors, which are

• Risk of material misstatement

associated with the assertion or with

the account or class of transactions;

• Extent of judgment the auditor

exercises in performing the work and

evaluating the results;

• Nature of the auditing proce-dure;

• Significance, to the assertion be-ing

tested, of the evidence the auditor

obtains;

• Nature and extent of exceptions

the auditor identifies; and

• The need to document a conclu-sion


or the basis for a conclusion not

evident from the documentation of the

work the auditor performed.

SAS No. 96

continued on page 4

2

William Patrick Farrell, # 23620

Cary, NC 03/ 22/ 02

Disciplinary Actions

THIS CAUSE, coming before the Board

at its offices at 1101 Oberlin Road, Ra-leigh,

Wake County, North Carolina,

with a quorum present. Pursuant to

NCGS 150B- 41 and 150B- 22, the Board

and Respondent stipulate the follow-ing

Findings:

1. Respondent is the holder of North

Carolina certificate number 23620 as a

Certified Public Accountant.

2. In March of 2001, Board staff re-ceived

a complaint from Complainant

stating that Respondent had failed to

return client records upon demand.

3. Board staff sent a letter dated April

4, 2001, to Respondent’s last known

business address requesting that Re-spondent

reply to the allegations.

4. Receiving no response, Board staff

sent a second letter dated April 26,

2001, to Respondent’s last known busi-ness

address by certified/ return re-ceipt

mail requesting that Respondent

reply to the allegations and that Re-spondent

explain his failure to re-spond

to the April 4, 2001, letter.

5. In a letter dated April 30, 2001,

Respondent stated that in March of

2001 he had faxed the requested depre-ciation

schedule to Complainant and

that Respondent had no knowledge of

what happened to the fax on

Complainant’s “ end.”

6. In this letter, Respondent also stated

that he had not responded to the Board

April 4, 2001, letter “... because I was

not going to have my tax season inter-rupted

again by Complainant or his

complaints. I was too busy.”

7. Respondent further stated that if

Complainant withdrew his complaint

and apologized for the situation or if

Complainant paid Respondent $ 75.00,

Respondent would then again send

Complainant the requested deprecia-tion

schedule.

8. Subsequently the Board’s Profes-sional

Standards Committee reviewed

a redacted version ( Respondent’s name

was removed) of the information per-taining

to this matter, and instructed

the Board staff to close the matter with-out

prejudice upon the conditions that

Respondent receive a Letter of Warn-ing

regarding his firm’s policies on re-turning

client records, and that Re-spondent

provide the Complainant

with all client records including the

depreciation schedule within fifteen

( 15) days. The Board staff issued the

Letter of Warning and demand regard-ing

client records on June 1, 2001.

9. In a reply dated July 14, 2001, Re-spondent

denied that he had failed to

cooperate with a Board inquiry but

that the first letter had come “ in the

middle of the busiest time of the year

for any CPA office.” Despite his earlier

claim that he had received “ threaten-ing

messages” from the Complainant

during this time, Respondent also

stated that he assumed that the Com-plainant

had the depreciation sched-ule

since Respondent had not heard

any more from him since faxing the

depreciation schedule in March of 2001.

10. In this letter, Respondent also re-quested

that the Letter of Warning be

removed from his Board records.

11. Respondent states that, upon re-ceipt

of the Board’s June 1, 2001, letter,

he tried several times to fax the depre-ciation

schedule to the Complainant

but it failed to go through. Respondent

states that he then called Complainant’s

spouse’s office and left a message for

the Complainant’s spouse that the

Complainant’s spouse could pick up

the depreciation schedule at

Respondent’s office.

12. In response to inquiries from Board

staff, the Complainant has confirmed

that Respondent continued to refuse to

provide the requested depreciation

schedule. The Complainant has in-formed

the Board that, since requested

depreciation schedule was not pro-vided,

Complainant engaged another

CPA to recreate those records.

13. Respondent contends that the sev-enty-

five dollar ($ 75) charge was for

answering the Complainant’s questions

which Respondent contends required

him to pull the Complainant’s file a

total of five ( 5) times.

14. Respondent wishes to resolve this

matter by consent and agrees that the

Board staff and counsel may discuss

this Order with the Board ex parte,

whether or not the Board accepts this

Order as written.

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, the

Board makes the following Conclusions

of Law:

1. Respondent is subject to the provi-sions

of Chapter 93 of the North Caro-lina

General Statutes ( NCGS) and

Title 21, Chapter 8 of the North Caro-lina

Administrative Code ( NCAC), in-cluding

the Rules of Professional Eth-ics

and Conduct promulgated and

adopted therein by the Board.

2. Respondent’s conduct as set out

above constitute violations of NCGS

93- 12( 9) e and 21 NCAC 8N .0206, 8N

.0212, and 8N .0305.

BASED ON THE FOREGOING and in

lieu of further proceedings under

21 NCAC Chapter 8C, the Board and

Respondent agree to the following Or-der:

1. Respondent is censured.

THIS CAUSE, coming before the Board

at its offices at 1101 Oberlin Road, Ra-leigh,

Wake County, North Carolina,

with a quorum present. Pursuant to

NCGS 150B- 41 and 150B- 22, the Board

and Respondent stipulate the follow-ing

Findings:

1. Respondent was the holder of North

Carolina certificate number 13104 as a

Certified Public Accountant.

2. In December of 2000, the Board

approved Respondent’s request that

his North Carolina license be placed

on inactive status.

3. Based upon Respondent’s represen-tation

that he was inactive and as a

Edward J. Logue, Jr., # 13104

Pasedena, CA 03/ 22/ 02

3

result of the grant of his request for

inactive status, Board staff informed

the North Carolina Secretary of State’s

office that the Articles of Incorporation

for Respondent’s firm, Ed Logue, CPA,

CFP, P. A., should be suspended.

4. Sometime in late 2000, Respondent

sold his CPA practice to Raymond A.

Dunn, II, of Liberty Tax Service. Re-spondent

has informed the Board that

Trey Middleton ( Mr. Middleton) pur-chased

the firm as a franchise from

Liberty Tax Service.

5. Despite the sale to Liberty Tax Ser-vice,

Respondent drafted a letter to be

sent to clients which introduced Mr.

Middleton as the new owner of

Respondent’s firm. In this letter, Re-spondent

states that he has “ trans-ferred”

each client’s “ tax records to

Trey and feel very confident that he

will do an excellent job” for the client.

6. Despite the sale of Respondent’s

firm to a non- CPA, representatives of

the firm continued to make unautho-rized

use of and reference to the CPA

title in connection with the services of

the new firm.

7. The Board obtained a “ Notice of

Apparent Violation and Demand to

Cease and Desist” from Mr. Middleton

demanding that both Mr. Middleton

and The Accounting Store immediately

cease and desist from use of or refer-ence

to the CPA title.

9. Respondent wishes to resolve this

matter by consent and agrees that the

Board staff and counsel may discuss

this Order with the Board ex parte,

whether or not the Board accepts this

Order as written.

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, the

Board makes the following Conclusions

of Law:

1. Respondent is subject to the provi-sions

of Chapter 93 of the North Caro-lina

General Statutes ( NCGS) and

Title 21, Chapter 8 of the North Caro-lina

Administrative Code ( NCAC), in-cluding

the Rules of Professional Eth-ics

and Conduct promulgated and

adopted therein by the Board.

2. Respondent’s release of client in-formation

to Liberty Tax Service or to

Mr. Middleton without prior permis-sion

of the client represents violation of

NCGS 93- 12( 9) e and 21 NCAC

8N .0203( a) and 8N .0205( a).

3. Respondent’s failure to ensure that

the buyer did not continue to illegally

use or trade upon the CPA title is a

violation of NCGS 93- 12( 9) e and

21 NCAC 8N .0202( b)( 2) and ( b)( 9).

BASED ON THE FOREGOING and in

lieu of further proceedings under

21 NCAC Chapter 8C, the Board and

Respondent agree to the following Or-der:

1. Respondent’s inactive certificate is

suspended for at least one year.

2. If Respondent returns his suspended

certificate within fifteen ( 15) days of

the receipt of this Order, Respondent

can, after one ( 1) year, apply to return

his certificate to active status by sub-mission

and approval of a reinstate-ment

application which includes:

a. Application form,

b. Payment of the application fee,

c. Three ( 3) moral character affidavits,

and

d. Forty ( 40) hours of CPE in the twelve

( 12) months preceding the application

including an eight- hour accountancy

law course pursuant to 21 NCAC

8F .0504.

3. If Respondent returns his suspended

certificate in excess of fifteen ( 15) days

of the receipt of this Order, Respondent

can, after one ( 1) year plus the number

of days that his certificate is late in

being returned, apply to return his cer-tificate

to active status by submission

and approval of a reinstatement appli-cation

which includes:

a. Application form,

b. Payment of the application fee,

c. Three ( 3) moral character affidavits

( on forms provided by Board),

d. Forty ( 40) hours of CPE in the twelve

( 12) months preceding the application

including an eight- hour accountancy

law course pursuant to 21 NCAC

8F .0504, and

e. Consent Order requiring payment of

at least $ 100.00 in administrative costs.

Board Meetings

Monday, June 24

Tuesday, July 23*

Friday, August 16*

Monday, September 23

Friday, October 18

Monday, November 18

Tuesday, December 17

Meetings of the Board are open to

the public except when, pursuant to

State law, some portions of the meet-ings

are closed to the public. Unless

otherwise noted, meetings are held

at the Board’s office in Raleigh.

* New date

Address Changed?

Pursuant to 21 NCAC 8J .0107, all

North Carolina CPAs and CPA

firms must notify the Board, in writ-ing,

within 30 days of any change of

address or business location.

For your convenience, a “ No-tice

of Address Change” form is

printed on the back cover of each

issue of the Activity Review.

Licensees should mail or fax

the change( s) to Alice Steckenrider.

Changes may also be e- mailed to

( alicegst@ bellsouth. net).

CPA firms should mail or fax

the change( s) to Lynn Wyatt.

Changes may also be e- mailed to

( lynnwyat@ bellsouth. net).

Exam candidates should mail

or fax the change( s) to the Examina-tions

staff. Changes may also be e-mailed

to ( pwelliot@ bellsouth. net)

or ( jmacombe@ bellsouth. net).

Do you have questions or comments

about items published in the Activ-ity

Review?

If so, please contact Lisa R.

Hearne, Communications Manager,

by telephone at ( 919) 733- 4208 or by

e- mail at ( lhearne@ bellsouth. net).

Comments? Questions?

4

SAS No. 96 includes two require-ments

dealing with certain types of

audit evidence. The ASB developed

these in response to comments practi-tioners

involved in the peer review

process made about the quality of au-dit

documentation and to the concerns

of the Panel on Audit Effectiveness.

One requirement is that the docu-mentation

must include abstracts or

copies of significant contracts or agree-ments

the auditor examined to evalu-ate

the accounting for significant trans-actions.

The other is that audit documenta-tion

for tests of operating effectiveness

of controls and substantive tests of de-tails

involving inspection of documents

or confirmation should include an iden-tification

of the items tested.

How the auditor identifies the

tested items depends on how he or she

selected them.

For example, if the auditor selected

from a particular accounting record all

items meeting certain criteria ( for in-stance,

items that are over a specified

dollar amount), he or she can simply

identify that record and those criteria.

In other situations— for example,

when an auditor uses statistical sam-pling—

the documentation may need

to include identifying characteristics

( such as the specific invoice numbers)

of the selected items.

The key question auditors should

ask themselves is whether another au-ditor

on the engagement team would

be able to identify— by reviewing the

audit program and related documen-tation—

the particular items the origi-nal

auditor selected for testing.

The ASB considered it impractical

to develop specific documentation

guidance for substantive tests of de-tails

that involve procedures other than

inspection of documents and confir-mation

This is because auditors can

use these other types of procedures,

such as observation, for a variety of

purposes and can execute them in a

number of different ways.

Other standards, laws and regula-tions

also may include specific docu-mentation

requirements applicable to

an engagement. Auditors therefore will

need to consider them in addition to

the ones in SAS No. 96.

Some, such as the ones in Govern-ment

Auditing Standards ( also known as

the yellow book), may be more rigor-ous

than the requirements in SAS No.

96.

SAS No. 96 requires the auditor to

document certain audit findings or is-sues

he or she considers significant—

an existing best practice among firms

of many sizes.

Generally, these findings or issues

are so important that they would affect

the auditor’s report if not resolved.

They include the following:

• Matters that are significant and

involve issues regarding the appropri-ate

selection, application and consis-tency

of accounting principles pertain-ing

to the financial statements, includ-ing

related disclosures. Such matters

often relate to accounting for complex

or unusual transactions or to estimates

and uncertainties and any applicable

management assumptions.

• Results of auditing procedures

that indicate the financial statements

or disclosures could be materially mis-stated

or that the auditing procedures

need to be significantly modified.

• Circumstances that cause the

auditor significant difficulty in apply-ing

auditing procedures he or she con-siders

necessary.

• Other findings that could result

in modification of the auditor’s report.

SAS No. 96 stresses that the audi-tor

owns the audit documentation. It

also requires an auditor to adopt rea-sonable

procedures to retain such docu-mentation

long enough “ to meet the

needs of his or her practice and to

satisfy any applicable legal or regula-tory

requirements for records reten-tion.”

Because laws and regulations vary

by jurisdiction and the nature of the

engagement, SAS No. 96 does not say

how long the retention period should

be. It simply requires the auditor to

adopt procedures that enable him or

her to gain access to the documentation

throughout that period.

One way for auditors to accom-plish

this is by creating a policy to

maintain electronic documentation in

a format that ensures its compatibility

with newer versions of audit software

or by retaining older versions of such

software and, if necessary, the hard-ware

on which it runs.

SAS No. 96 includes amendments

that add documentation requirements

to three other statements: SAS No. 47,

Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting

an Audit, SAS No. 56, Analytical Proce-dures,

and SAS No. 59, The Auditor’s

Consideration of an Entity’s Ability to

Continue as a Going Concern.

The amended SAS No. 47 requires

an auditor to document the nature and

effect of aggregated misstatements and

his or her conclusion as to whether

they cause the financial statements to

be materially misstated.

This facilitates compliance with the

requirement in SAS No. 89, Audit Ad-justments,

that a summary of uncor-rected

financial statement misstate-ments

aggregated by the auditor be

included in or attached to

management’s written representation

regarding its belief that the uncorrected

misstatements are immaterial, both in-dividually

and in the aggregate.

The amendment to SAS No. 56

requires auditors to document certain

aspects of substantive analytical pro-cedures

they perform as a principal

audit test of a significant financial state-ment

assertion. Three requirements

apply.

First, auditors now must document

the factors they considered in develop-ing

the expectation for a particular ana-lytical

procedure. They also have to

document the expectation if it is not

apparent from the documentation of

the work they performed.

To illustrate this requirement, as-sume

that auditors perform a substan-tive

test of sales and accounts receiv-able

by developing an expectation of

the number of days’ sales in accounts

receivable based on relationships in

prior years. The documentation should

include the number of— or range of—

days’ sales expected for the current

year and the factors, such as current

economic conditions, considered in de-veloping

this expectation.

The other two requirements of the

amended SAS No. 56 will oblige audi-

SAS No. 96

continued from front page

5

tors to document the results of their

comparison of the expectation with the

recorded amounts or the ratios the au-ditors

develop from those amounts;

and any additional auditing procedures

they perform in response to significant

unexpected differences arising from

analytical procedures and those addi-tional

auditing procedures’ results.

These requirements add more

structure to situations in which ana-lytical

procedures provide substantial

evidence about a significant balance or

class of transactions.

This amendment to SAS No. 56

applies only to substantive analytical

procedures that an auditor performs as

a principal audit test of a significant

financial statement assertion. For all

other analytical procedures, auditors

should refer to the general documenta-tion

guidance in SAS No. 96.

The Panel on Audit Effectiveness

called for improvement in the docu-mentation

of the auditor’s consider-ation

of an entity’s ability to continue

as a going concern, especially as it re-lates

to his or her evaluation of pro-spective

financial information that is

significant to management plans.

SAS No. 96’ s amendment to

SAS No. 59 addresses the panel’s rec-ommendation

and requires the auditor

to document the conditions or events

that led him or her to believe there is

substantial doubt about the entity’s

ability to continue as a going concern;

the work performed in connection with

the auditor’s evaluation of

management’s plans; the auditor’s con-clusion

as to whether substantial doubt

remains about the entity’s ability to

continue as a going concern for a rea-sonable

period of time; and the consid-eration

and effect of that conclusion on

the financial statements, disclosures

and the audit report.

SAS No. 96 provides overall docu-mentation

requirements for GAAS au-dits.

The ASB will use the statement’s

documentation concepts and guidance

when developing more specific require-ments

in future SASs.

Because some of the content in

SAS No. 96 is relevant to practitioners

performing attest engagements, the

ASB issued Statement on Standards

for Attestation Engagements ( SSAE)

No. 11, Attest Documentation, which in-corporates

SAS No. 96’ s concepts and

terminology and consolidates all docu-mentation

guidance in the attestation

standards.

SSAE No. 11 is effective for attest

engagements when the subject matter

or assertion is as of, or for a period

ending on or after, December 15, 2002,

with earlier application permitted.

Reprinted from “ The New Audit

Documentation Requirements,” by Ray

Whittingon and Gretchen Fischbach

published in the Journal of Accountancy,

April 2002.

Jenna Angelo

Laura Kelley Arthur

William O. Bailes

Deborah Hoadley Balduff

Gerald Balonis

Henry Clay Beck

Kermit Killian Bolick

George Thomas Bolton, III

Jeffrey R. Boyle

Rachel A. Brassine

Tara Frohn Brittain

Melanie Brueck

Miguel Angel Castillo

Deborah Ann Charles

Xiaojing Chen

Lawrence Ray Crews

Terry E. Dail

Douglas A. Dreher

Dwayne Leland Eanes

Robert Edley

Donna Roach Edmonds

David N. Elder

Eric Lance Eubanks

Susan Lynn Evans

Lee F. Fritts

John Randall Funk

David L. Garriques

Marcene Marie Graves

Roberta Bittner Grider

Steven L. Haenchen

Alexander Bruch Harding

Stephen D. Harrell

Vance Alan Harritan

Norman Dwight Hash

James C. Hedstrom

Mark Stephen Helms

Linda L. Henderson

Duncan Broughton Hilburn

James Earle Hinton

Gladys Latonya Johnson

Wilmot Carlyle Jones, III

Jeffrey Joseph Kantor

Gregory Scott Kirkland

Laura Germaine Lancaster

Grant E. Leister

Cathy Weaver Liles

Christopher Mangin, Jr.

Dexter K. Manning

Heather Cudd Martin

Peter Michael Messana

Theresa Spring Meza

Phillip Ezra Mills, III

Litsa Nicole Mitropoulos

Gail Nadia Moore

Joseph R. Munday

Eric Menton Padgett

Stephen Gillette Perkins

Christopher Michael Pierce

John Stephen Quinn

Lawrence Joseph Redler

Pressley Ausdon Ridgill, Jr.

Tiffany Marie Sams

Heather Lea Schonfeldt

John Lewis Seabrook, III

Michael Neal Shelton

Angela Lynn Shipley

Robin Moore Sikes

David Philip Sirois

Charles Seifert Smith

Jennifer Ann Smith

Michelle Lynn Sosnowski

Patricia Jane Spinella

Heather L. Spreeman

John W. Stewart

Stephen Marcus Strader

Hannalie Trautman

Jodi L. Watterson

Jackie H. White

Everett O. Winn

Certificates Issued

The following certificate applications were approved by the Board at its April 18, 2002, meeting:

6

James F. Young, # 26986

James Young CPA, P. L. L. C.

Charlotte, NC 03/ 22/ 02

THIS CAUSE, coming before the Board

at its offices at 1101 Oberlin Road, Ra-leigh,

Wake County, North Carolina,

with a quorum present. Pursuant to

NCGS 150B- 41 and 150B- 22, the Board

and Respondent stipulate the follow-ing

Findings:

1. Respondent James F. Young ( hereaf-ter

“ Respondent”) is the holder of North

Carolina certificate number 26986 as a

Certified Public Accountant.

2. Respondent James Young CPA,

P. L. L. C. ( hereafter “ Respondent firm”),

is a registered certified public account-ing

firm in North Carolina.

3. In September of 1999, Respondent

registered Respondent firm with the

Board as a professional limited liabil-ity

company with one office location.

4. Respondent subsequently dissemi-nated

brochures which indicated that

Respondent firm had three ( 3) office

locations.

5. Respondent advertised two ( 2) un-registered

office locations in connec-tion

with a non- CPA firm in a check-cashing

business in offering to prepare

and preparing tax returns.

6. Respondent wishes to resolve this

matter by consent and agrees that the

Board staff and counsel may discuss

this Order with the Board ex parte,

whether or not the Board accepts this

Order as written.

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, the

Board makes the following Conclusions

of Law:

1. Respondent is subject to the provi-sions

of Chapter 93 of the North Caro-lina

General Statutes ( NCGS) and

Title 21, Chapter 8 of the North Caro-

Disciplinary Action

lina Administrative Code ( NCAC), in-cluding

the Rules of Professional Eth-ics

and Conduct promulgated and

adopted therein by the Board.

2. Respondent’s actions as set out above

constitute violations of NCGS 93- 12( 9) e

and 21 NCAC 8K .0104( d)( 2),

8N .0202( a), and 8N .0306( a).

BASED ON THE FOREGOING and in

lieu of further proceedings under

21 NCAC Chapter 8C, the Board and

Respondent agree to the following Or-der:

1. Respondent is censured.

2. Respondent shall immediately close

or register any unregistered firm loca-tions.

3. Respondent shall take all steps nec-essary

to ensure that his firm ceases

and desists from participation in any

and all misleading or confusing adver-tising

in conjunction with non- CPA

businesses.

Reclassifications

Reissuance

Harold Claude Reid, # 10154

Retired

“ Retired,” when used to refer to the

status of a person, describes one

possessing a North Carolina

certificate of qualification who

verifies to the Board that the

applicant does not receive or intend

to receive in the future any earned

compensation for current personal

services in any job whatsoever and

will not return to active status

[ 21 NCAC 8A .0301( b)( 23)].

04/ 18/ 02

Bobby Eugene Combs,

Statesville, NC

Millard Pratt,

Norfolk, VA

Curtis Toms, Jr.,

Raleigh, NC

Tired of Junk E- mail?

Do you receive lots of junk e- mail

messages (“ spam”)? The Federal

Trade Commission ( FTC) offers the

following tips for reducing the amount

of unwanted commercial e- mail you

receive:

• Don’t display your e- mail address

in public, including newsgroup

postings, chat rooms, web sites, or in

an online service’s membership

directory.

• Check the privacy policy when you

submit your address to a web site. See

if the policy allows the company to

sell your address. You may want to

opt out of this provision or not submit

your address at all to web sites that

won’t protect your e- mail address.

• Read the entire form before you

transmit personal information

through a web site. Some web sites

allow you to opt out of receiving email

from their “ partners” - but you may

have to uncheck a preselected box to

opt out.

• Use a unique e- mail address.

Spammers use “ dictionary attacks”

to sort through possible name

combinations hoping to find a valid

address. Thus, a common name such

as jdoe may get more spam than a

more unique name like jd51x02oe.

• Use an e- mail filter. Check your e-mail

account to see if it provides a tool

to filter out potential spam or a way to

channel spam into a bulk e- mail folder.

• Report the spam to the FTC.

Forward a copy of unwanted

messages to uce@ ftc. gov. The FTC

uses the unsolicited e- mails stored in

this database to pursue law

enforcement actions against people

who send spam or deceptive e- mail.

• Forward a copy of the spam to your

ISP’s abuse desk and the spammer’s

ISP’s abuse desk. By doing this, you

can let the ISPs know about the spam

problem on their systems and help

them stop the spammer from

continuing to abuse the system.

77

“ Inactive,” when used to refer to the status of a person, describes one who has

requested inactive status and been approved by the Board and who does not use

the title “ certified public accountant” nor does he or she allow anyone to refer to

him or her as a “ certified public accountant” and neither he or she nor anyone else

refers to him or her in any representation as described in 21 NCAC

8A .0308( b) [ 21 NCAC 8A .0301( b)( 23)].

04/ 02/ 02 Victoria Plaster Warren Bristol, TN

04/ 02/ 02 Thomas Bruce Brown Pittsboro, NC

04/ 02/ 02 Jack C. Robinson Greenville, SC

04/ 02/ 02 Misty McMullen Glass Montgomery, AL

04/ 04/ 02 Michael Ruel Johnson Marietta, GA

04/ 04/ 02 Ernest Lee Puschaver Bonita Springs, FL

04/ 04/ 02 Ocie Kyle Hogan, III Asheboro, NC

04/ 04/ 02 Amy Allen Lewis Jamestown, NC

04/ 04/ 02 Samuel Leigh Burke Midlothian, VA

04/ 04/ 02 Robert Joseph Difelice Vero Beach, FL

04/ 04/ 02 Anne Jennings Sanders High Point, NC

04/ 10/ 02 Don Ray Lloyd N. Myrtle Beach, SC

04/ 10/ 02 Elizabeth Ann Staker Apex, NC

04/ 11/ 02 William Albert Brasington Houston, TX

04/ 11/ 02 Annemarie Thomas Willow Spring, NC

04/ 12/ 02 Deborah Queeney Ellis Castle Rock, CO

04/ 12/ 02 Ashley Baker Neale Mount Pleasant, SC

04/ 12/ 02 Warren Martin McLean, VA

04/ 16/ 02 Denise Nichols Perry Winston- Salem, NC

04/ 16/ 02 Mary Mercer Tugwell Washington, DC

04/ 16/ 02 Jennifer Leah Horton Greensboro, NC

04/ 17/ 02 Edgar Raymond Wood, Jr. Cornelius, NC

04/ 17/ 02 Daneil Lee Belongia Charlotte, NC

04/ 17/ 02 Cathy Ruffalo Callahan Herndon, VA

04/ 17/ 02 Amy Elizabeth Read Charlotte, NC

04/ 17/ 02 Julia Elizabeth Guifoyle Charlotte, NC

04/ 18/ 02 Joseph Thomas Jordan, Jr. Raleigh, NC

04/ 18/ 02 Roger Paul Legendre Belle Mead, NJ

04/ 18/ 02 Cathy Elaine Vetter Raleigh, NC

04/ 18/ 02 Renee Brock Daw Wilson, NC

04/ 18/ 02 Jennifer McCall Kennedy Roanoke, VA

04/ 18/ 02 Letitia Fowler Granados Wake Forest, NC

04/ 22/ 02 Roger Gale Simmons Wilmington, NC

04/ 22/ 02 Bryant Lee Deaton Belmont, NC

04/ 22/ 02 Jeffrey Hollister Getz Easton, CT

04/ 23/ 02 Alfred Giannella Matthews, NC

04/ 25/ 02 David Brown Watkins Cumming, GA

04/ 29/ 02 Danny Ray Hines Greenville, NC

04/ 29/ 02 Alan Hunt Duncan Little Rock, AR

04/ 29/ 02 Lori McIlroy Calhoun Charlotte, NC

04/ 29/ 02 Michelle Sigmon Jones Charlotte, NC

04/ 30/ 02 Mary Wyant Stebbins Williamsburg, VA

Inactive Status

Main Telephone Number

( 919) 733- 4222

Fax Number

( 919) 733- 4209

Toll- Free Application Line

1- 800- 211- 7930

Address

1101 Oberlin Road, Suite 104

PO Box 12827

Raleigh, NC 27605

Web Site

http:// www. state. nc. us/ cpabd

Administrative Services

( 919) 733- 4223

Felecia Ashe

feleciaa@ bellsouth. net

Communications

( 919) 733- 4208

Lisa R. Hearne

lhearne@ bellsouth. net

Examinations

( 919) 733- 4224

Judith E. Macomber

jmacombe@ bellsouth. net

Phyllis W. Elliott

pwelliot@ bellsouth. net

Executive Director

( 919) 733- 4222

Robert N. Brooks

rnbrooks@ bellsouth. net

Licensing

( 919) 733- 1421

Buck Winslow

buckwins@ bellsouth. net

Licensing ( applications)

( 919) 733- 1422

Alice G. Steckenrider

alicegst@ bellsouth. net

Licensing ( firms/ SQR/ CPE)

( 919) 733- 1423

Lynn Wyatt

lynnwyat@ bellsouth. net

Professional Standards

( 919) 733- 1426

Ann H. Hinkle

ahhinkle@ bellsouth. net

Jo Gaskill

jogaskil@ bellsouth. net

Receptionist

Karen Burton

karenburton@ bellsouth. net

Contact the Board

Certificate No. Send Mail to Home Business

New Home Address

City State Zip

CPA Firm/ Business Name

New Bus. Address

City State Zip

Telephone: Bus. ( ) Home ( )

Bus. fax ( ) E- mail Address

Certificate Holder

Last name Jr./ III First Middle

North Carolina State Board of

Certified Public Accountant Examiners

Post Office Box 12827

Raleigh NC 27605- 2827

PRST STD

US Postage

PAID

Greensboro, NC

Permit No. 393

21,000 copies of this document were printed for this agency at a cost of $ 2,758.29 or 13¢ per copy in May 2002.

Certificate holders not notifying the Board in writing within 30 days of any change in address or business location may be subject to

disciplinary action under 21 NCAC 8J .0107.

Address Change? Let Us Know!

Signature Date

Mail to: NC State Board of Fax to: ( 919) 733- 4209

CPA Examiners

PO Box 12827

Raleigh, NC 27605- 2827

State Board of

CPA Examiners

Board Members

R. Stanley Vaughan, CPA

President, Charlotte

O. Charlie Chewning, Jr., CPA

Vice President, Raleigh

Michael H. Wray

Secretary- Treasurer, Gaston

Barton W. Baldwin, CPA

Member, Mount Olive

Scott L. Cox, CPCU, CIC

Member, Charlotte

Walter C. Davenport, CPA

Member, Raleigh

Leonard W. Jones, CPA

Member, Morehead City

Staff

Executive Director

Robert N. Brooks

Legal Counsel

Noel L. Allen, Esq.

Administrative Services

Felecia F. Ashe

Communications

Lisa R. Hearne, Manager

Examinations

Judith E. Macomber, Manager

Phyllis W. Elliott

Licensing

Buck Winslow, Manager

Alice G. Steckenrider

Lynn Wyatt

Professional Standards

Ann J. Hinkle, Manager

Jo Gaskill

Receptionist

Karen Burton