|
 |
General Information In the fall of 1977, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) commenced a self-regulatory program. This program was designed to improve the quality of accounting and auditing services provided by CPA firms through a triennial review of these services by qualified individuals from other independent CPA firms. Standards were established for performing and reporting on these reviews by the AICPA. By 1990, a peer review was mandatory as a membership requirement of the AICPA.
Today, in order to be admitted or to retain membership in the AICPA as well as the Colorado Society of Certified Public Accountants (CSCPA), members who are engaged in the practice of public accounting in the United States or its territories are required to be practicing as owners or employees of firms enrolled in a practice-monitoring program. Or if practicing in firms not eligible to enroll, are themselves enrolled in such a program if the services performed by such a firm or individual are within the scope of the AICPA’s practice-monitoring standards and the firm or individual issues reports purporting to be in accordance with AICPA professional standards. Firms that perform tax services only are not required to enroll in a practice-monitoring program.
A peer review is conducted in compliance with the confidentiality requirements of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. Information concerning the reviewed firm, its clients or personnel, including the findings of the review are confidential. Certain firms have agreed to make the results of their reviews available for public inspection because of their membership in the public or private section of the AICPA.
Back to Top
FAQs What is Peer Review?
Carried out in conjunction with participating administering entities and overseen by the AICPA, the AICPA Peer Review Program requires CPAs to undergo a rigorous, outside review of their accounting and auditing practices once every three years. These reviews determine whether a firm has suitable quality control policies and procedures and is complying with them. Specifically, the reviews focus on the following:
- How the firm implements independence, integrity and objectivity requirements,
- How personnel are managed,
- How accounting and auditing of clients are performed,
- Acceptance and continuation of clients and engagements,
- Monitoring of the firm’s work.
This self-regulatory tool is designed to maintain and improve the quality of the accounting and auditing services performed by members.
What are the practice-monitoring requirements and does my firm have to enroll in a practice-monitoring program?
See general information above about membership.
What happens if the reviewer finds deficiencies? Does this information go to the Colorado State Board of Accountancy?
No, all results are confidential and no information is reported to the Colorado State Board of Accountancy.
Back to Top
Peer Review Structure and Types of Reports
The AICPA has reevaluated and revised its standards for performing and reporting on peer reviews for CPA firms. These standards became effective for peer reviews commencing on or after 1/1/2004. These revisions should result in significant efficiencies in conducting and administering peer reviews.
Three Tier Peer Review Structure
The most significant change is that there will be three types of peer reviews (system, engagement and report) instead of two (on-site and off-site). The engagements in a firm’s accounting and auditing practice currently covered under peer review will still be covered under the revised standards.
System Review (similar to the former on-site review) – is required for firms who perform engagements under the Statements on auditing Standards (SAS), the “yellow book” or examinations of prospective financial information under the Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAEs). The system review is designed to review and issue an opinion on the firm’s system of quality control.
Engagement Review (similar to the former off-site review) – is required for firms that perform reviews, compilations with disclosures, agreed upon procedures under SSAE and Web or Systrust engagements under SSAE. It includes a separate report and letter of comments, technical review, committee acceptance, monitoring actions, etc. There is no opinion on the reviewed firm’s system of quality control and therefore the reviewer is not opining on the firms compliance with its own quality control policies and procedures or with quality control standards, just conformity with SSARS and the SSAEs. A change incorporated in the engagement review is the inspection of certain work papers.
Documentation provided will depend on the type of engagement reviewed. For example, a review engagement will require copies of Management Representation letters and work papers indicating inquiry and analytical procedures. Other documentation will be required for agreed upon procedure and attestation engagements.
Report Review (new designation) - requires firms that only perform compilations that omit substantially all disclosures to have a report review. However, is a firm performs compilations classified as “Selected Information – substantially All Disclosures Required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles are Not Included” under SSARS, it must have an engagement review. There is no review of or opinion issued on the firm’s system of quality control.
The peer reviewer prepares a written report after discussing the comments and recommendations with the firm. An authorized member of the firm is then required to sign the report, whether or not there are comments acknowledging that there are no disagreements on significant matters and the firm agrees to correct matters included in the comments. The firm is then required to submit the signed copy of the report to the administering entity. There is no separate letter of comments or response, however, a firm would not be prohibited from attaching a “response” to the signed copy of the peer review report.
A technical review is required to be performed by the administering entity on all report reviews, but committee consideration is not always required. This process is only allowed on report reviews. The technical reviewer may not impose corrective actions. The committee must consider any corrective actions.
Types of Peer Review Reports – Three types of peer review reports may be issued following a peer review:
- Unqualified – The firm is conforming with professional standards
- Qualified – The firm is conforming with professional standards except for the deficiencies notes
- Adverse – The firm does not have reasonable assurance of conforming with professional standards.
Back to Top
Highlights of the Revised AICPA Standards for Performing and Reporting and Peer Reviews
In January of 2005, revised Standards for Performing and Reporting on Peer Reviews were effective for peer reviews commencing on or after January 1, 2005 for firms (and individuals) enrolled in the AICPA Peer Review Program. The Standards can be downloaded from the AICPA website at http://www.aicpa.org/members/div/practmon/pr_stds.htm, or call Susan Vachereau at 303-741-8605 or email to svachereau@cocpa.org for a copy of the Standards.
This is not an all inclusive list of the revisions to the Standards for Performing and Reporting on Peer Reviews. The revised Standards, Interpretations and additional guidance should be consulted for all the revisions to the Standards.
Firms:
- Written representation letter required on all peer reviews (call Susan Vachereau at 303-741-8605 for a sample letter).
- Timing of Peer Reviews
- Firms that previously had an engagement or report review and are engaged to perform an engagement requiring a system review are required to:
- Notify administering entity upon issuance of engagement requiring a system review
- Undergo a system review within 18 months from the year-end of an engagement requiring a system review.
- Must make available to the reviewer communications relating to allegations or investigations of deficiencies in the conduct of an accounting, audit or attestation engagement performed and reported on by the firm.
System Reviews:
- Changes in engagement selection:
- Initial selection should be provided to the reviewed firm no earlier than two weeks before the commencement;
- One engagement (at the firm’s highest level of service) should be provided to the firm once the review commences and not in advance.
- Team captain should be physically present at the exit conference, unless the review is performed at a location other than the practitioner’s office.
- System Reports revisions (see example in AICPA Peer Review Standards appendices)
- If a letter of comments is issued, the report includes a paragraph indicating the issuance of the letter of comments were not considered to be of sufficient significance to affect the report opinion.
- Modified and adverse reports include a description of the deficiencies and recommendations.
- Identifies scope limitations by industry and level of service
- Identifies substandard engagements by industry and level of service
- Letter of comments is prepared only if the matters were not of such significance to cause the report to be modified or adverse.
- Interpretation No. 1 was modified to allow only sole practitioners, (with no professional staff) that performs a total of three or less engagements covered by the SASs, Government Auditing Standards or examinations of prospective financial statements under the SSAEs to participate in a system review at another location.
- Exit Conference - when in the unusual circumstances, the team captain does not have the experience to review engagements performed under GAGAS, audits of employee benefit plans under ERISA or audits of an insured depository institution subject to the FDIC Improvement Act of 1991, and a team member is reviewing such engagements, the team member must participate in the exit conference (in person or via teleconference) if Matters for Further Consideration (MFC) related to the engagement are issued. If there are no MFCs related to the engagement reviewed by the team members, his/her presence is not mandatory, but they should be available for consultation, if necessary.
Engagement Reviews:
- The report should include deficiencies and identify substandard engagements by industry and level of service.
- Letter of comments should not be issued when a modified report is issued where all of the deficiencies are matters causing the report to be modified or when an adverse report is issued, as all deficiencies and recommendations should be contained in the report.
- Letter of response should respond to deficiencies and comments identified in the report and letter of comments, if applicable.
Report Reviews:
- Significant comments and matters must be identified/separated from non-significant comments and matters within the report.
Peer Reviewers:
- Must complete a peer review training course when the function of reviewer goes beyond reviewing engagements.
- All firms that the member is associated with should have received an unmodified report on the review of its system of quality control or an unmodified report on its engagement review for its most recent peer review that was accepted within the last three years and six months.
- All members of the system review team must be approved by the administering entity prior to the commencement of the review,
- Peer reviewers are required to update their Résumés’ on an annual basis. You can do this by logging on to the AICPA website at http://peerreview.aicpaservices.org/, or call Susan Vachereau at 303-741-8605 for assistance.
Licensure
Firms are required to comply with the rules and regulations of state boards of accountancy and other regulatory bodies in the states where they practice. Reviewers should continue to make inquiries of the firm to determine if it is appropriately licensed as required by the state boards. The reviewer must analyze the information obtained through inquiry and in the written representation letter to determine the impact on the report and letter of comments.
Accounting and Auditing Issues
Documentation of a Review engagement for financial statements for periods ending on or after 12/15/2004 should include the following:
1) Management representation letter, 2) matters covered in the accountant’s inquiry procedures, 3) the analytical procedures performed, 4) the accountant’s expectations (as discussed in AR 100.29) where significant expectations are not otherwise readily determinable from the documentation of the work performed, and factors considered in the development of those expectations, 5) results of the comparison of the expectations to the recorded amounts or ratios developed from recorded amounts, 6) Any additional procedures performed in response to significant unexpected differences arising from the analytical procedure and the results of such additional procedures, 7) Unusual matters that the accountant considered during the performance of the review procedures, including their disposition.
The AICPA Peer Review home page is not only an excellent resource for the Standards, you can also download the latest version of Team Captain Packets. All checklists for Report, Engagement and System reviews are in the Team Captain Packets. The AICPA Peer Review home page link is http://www.aicpa.org/members/div/practmon/index.htm.
Back To Top
Peer Review Days (formerly Off-Site Review Day Program)
The Peer Review Board has approved four Peer Review Days for 2008.
If your firm is eligible to have a Report or and Engagement review (performing fewer than 5 reviews) and agrees to the following criteria, you will qualify for the CSCPA Review Day Program.
- Performs fewer than 5 reviews
- You are a sole practitioner or sole owner of an L.L.C. or a P.C. performing compilations without disclosure, compilations with disclosure and 5 or fewer reviews.
- The firm’s completed scheduling form is returned to the Peer Review Dept. 60 days prior to peer review due date.
- The firm provides all review information requested by Peer Review Dept. staff approximately 4 to 6 weeks prior to the review day, and all fees are paid in advance.
- You will be available for reviewer’s questions on the day your firm is scheduled for review.
The CSCPA will hold four review days during 2008 - May 22nd, July 31st, September 25th, and November 20th. The reviews will be performed as Committee Appointed Reviews (CARTS). Qualified reviewers will be selected and assigned to firms based on matching client industry and other information provided by the firm. Peer Review staff will schedule the reviews, select and receive reports from the firms and assign the reviewers. Staff will also be responsible for all clerical aspects of these reviews and provide necessary checklists and materials to the reviewers.
The fees below include the reviewer’s fee, CSCPA participation fee and a technical review fee of $55 for Report Reviews and $70 for Engagement Reviews.
Number of Reports Reviewed 2008 ORD Fees
1 Compilation W/O disclosure (Report Review) $270
2 Compilations W/O Disclosure (Report Review) $390
1 Compilation with Disclosures (Engagement Review) $405
1 Compilation W/O Disclosure and 1 Compilation W/Disclosure (Engagement Review) $525
1 Review (Engagement Review) $405
1 Review and 1 Compilation W/O Disclosure (Engagement Review) $525
1 Review and 1 Compilation W/Disclosure (Engagement Review) $645
1 Review, 1 Compilation W/Disclosure and
1 Compilation W/O Disclosure (Engagement Review) $765
There is limited space available in each session so if you wish to participate in CSCPA Review Days Program, please call Susan Vachereau at 303-741-8605 or 800-523-9082 for information.
Back to Top
Meet the Peer Review Board
We are pleased to introduce our 2007-2008 Peer Review Board
Alan Holmberg, Chair
Larry O'Donnell, Vice Chair
Members:
Joe Adams
Julie Affleck
Don Gruenler
Marcia Hein
Bob Hoerr
Bill Lajoie
Jill Rickards
Ray Russell
Mike Schulz
Alan Terry
Peggy Topel
Randy Watson
Peer Review Board Meetings will be held on the following dates:
May 12-13, 2008 RABs & Board (last meeting of 2007 PRB year)
July 14-15, 2008 RABs Only
September 8-9, 2008 RABs and Board
October 27-28, 2008 RABs Only
December 15-16, 2008 RABs & Board
January 26-27, 2009 RABs Only
Back To Top
Additional Important Changes
There have been so many recent changes to accounting and auditing standards that the Colorado Society of CPAs Peer Review Committee decided to write this letter to assist you in reviewing your firm’s quality control policies and procedures. Being aware of the items below will help you comply with standards and therefore avoid findings on your next peer review.
Independence
Do you prepare journal entries or tax returns for compilation, review or audit clients? If so, then you are performing nonattest services for attest clients and Ethics Interpretation 101-3 (ET 101.05) applies. For audits and reviews you must be independent. For compilations you can either be independent or state in the compilation report that you are not independent. To have independence under this standard you and your client must agree that there is a competent employee to oversee the performance of your nonattest services. In some cases the bookkeeper may not be sufficiently knowledgeable and the owner will be the designated “competent employee”. For services performed after December 31, 2004, this understanding must be documented (commonly in engagement letters) prior to performance of the nonattest services. Specific documentation requirements include engagement objectives, applicable limitations, the nature of the services to be performed and both the firm’s and the client’s responsibilities. The documentation requirement does not apply prior to a client becoming an attest client (for example, a tax return client who later comes back and needs a financial statement).
For guidance on this complicated issue, visit the AICPA website, www.aicpa.org, and then click the “Code of Conduct” link on the sidebar of the home page. From there, select the “Section 100” link and then read Interpretation 101-3 to determine what other nonattest services you perform for your attest clients. The AICPA has extensive information on this issue on their web site under the “Professional Ethics” link. Also, PPC has written an excellent white paper with sample engagement letter wording that is available at www.ppcnet.com (click on the “downloads” link). Colorado’s State Board of Accountancy also makes the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct applicable to all CPAs, not just AICPA members.
Audits
Although the current discussion is focused on the significant changes in SAS 99, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement, another important recent change is SAS 96, Audit Documentation. Paragraph 6 of SAS 96 states, “Audit documentation should be sufficient to (a) enable members of the engagement team with supervision and review responsibilities to understand the nature, timing, extent, and results of auditing procedures performed, and the evidence obtained; (b) indicate the engagement team member(s) who performed and reviewed the work: and (c) show that the accounting records agree or reconcile with the financial statements or other information being reported on.” Even if your peer reviewer can conclude through discussion with firm members that sufficient audit work had been performed, a peer review finding will still need to be written if this work is not documented. Also, be aware that a simple sign off on the audit program may not suffice. There must be sufficient information included so that an engagement team member with supervision and review responsibilities understands the details of the work performed.
The documentation requirements of SAS 99 significantly extend the requirements of the previous standard. According to this standard, documentation should include the following:
- Results of the “brainstorming” session among engagement personnel in planning the audit, including how and when the discussion occurred, the audit team members who participated, and the subject matter discussed,
- procedures performed to obtain information necessary to identify and asses the risks of material misstatement due to fraud,
- specific risks of material misstatement due to fraud that were identified and a description of the auditor’s response to those risks,
- reasons supporting the auditor’s conclusion that improper revenue recognition is not an identifiable risk, if applicable,
- results of the procedures performed to further address the risk of management override of controls,
- other conditions and analytical relationships that caused the auditor to believe that additional auditing procedures or other responses were required and any further responses the auditor concluded were appropriate to address such risks or other conditions, and
- the nature of the communications about fraud made to management, the audit committee, and others.
With all the changes in auditing standards, the wording for engagement letters and management representation letters are constantly being revised. Currently, a common finding in system reviews is that engagement letters and/or management representation letters do not contain all the elements required by standards. These requirements can be found on the AICPA website where audit standards are now available in both original pronouncement and codified formats. At the same location on the web site are the attestation and quality control standards. The attestation standards are most commonly used for agreed upon procedures and projections and forecasts. The quality control standards are considered and tested by your peer reviewer during your system peer review. At the AICPA website, click on “audit and Attest Standards” link on the sidebar of the home page and click on “Authoritative Standards for Auditors of non-SEC issuers” at the top of the page.
Reviews
The Accounting and Review Services Committee has issued SSARS 10, Performance of Review Engagements, which is effective for reviews of financial statements for periods ending on or after December 15, 2004 (See the August 2004 issue of the Journal of Accountancy). This revision expands inquiry and analytical procedures (including fraud considerations) and documentation requirements. AR 100.35 states that “documentation is the principle record of the review procedures performed and the conclusions reached…oral explanations should be limited to…supplemental and clarify information in the documentation”. There have also been extensive changes to the management representation letter.
Back to Top
System Review Engagement Selection Based on Risk Assessment
Reviewers must assess "peer review risk" and use a risk‑based approach in the selection of engagements and offices for review. Audit risk is assessed in audit planning, and "peer review risk" is assessed in planning a system review. Peer review risk is the risk that the reviewer (and the peer review team) will –
- Fail to identify significant weaknesses in the reviewed firm's system of quality control or the degree of compliance therewith
- Issue an inappropriate report on the reviewed firm's system of quality control for its accounting and auditing practice or the firm's compliance with that system or both
- Reach an inappropriate conclusion about whether or not to issue a letter of comments and/or about the findings to be included in or excluded from the letter of comments
The assessed levels of risk are the key considerations in deciding the number and types of engagements to review and, where necessary, offices to visit. Through the assessment of risk, the reviewer determines the coverage of the firm's accounting and auditing practice that will result in an acceptably low peer review risk. Engagements selected should provide a reasonable cross‑section of the firm's accounting and auditing practice, with a greater emphasis on those engagements in the practice with higher assessed levels of peer review risk.
Reviewers must document, as part of the Summary Review Memorandum, the risk assessment of the firm's accounting and auditing practice and its system of quality control, the number of offices and engagements selected for review, and the basis for that selection in relation to the risk assessment. To effectively assess risk of the firm's accounting and auditing practice and its quality control policies, risk assessment documented action should not only address the engagements selected and the reasoning behind that selection, but also the environment of the firm and its system of quality controls. Some factors that should be considered are assessing risk include the following:
- The relationship of the firm's audit hours to total accounting and auditing hours
- The engagement size, relative to the firm's practice as a whole
- Initial engagements
- The industry in which the firm's clients operate, especially the firm's industry concentrations
- The results of the prior peer review
- Owners' continuing professional education (CPE) policies
- Owners' monitoring policies
- Maintenance of the firm's professional library
- Risk level of the engagements performed (ERISA, HUD, and so on)
- Any major changes in the firm since the prior peer review
- Engagements selected and the reasoning behind that selection
Although Standards do not require any specific format for documenting risk assessment, the documentation should include enough information to allow the report acceptance body to review the risk levels in order to determine if the peer review standards were appropriately applied. The documentation should include the assessment of inherent risk, control risk and detection risk as it pertains to the firm’s accounting and auditing practice, its quality control system, the number of offices and engagements to be selected and the basis for that selection in relation to risk assessment. Below are some examples of risk assessment documentation:
EXAMPLE I
Inherent risk was assessed at moderate to high risk for audit and review engagements since a) sole practitioner with no professional staff and with less perceived need for accounting and auditing network and b) 2 of the 12 engagements are in unique industries. Low risk on compilation engagements, mostly retail trade and uncomplicated engagements. Control risk was assessed at moderate due to the firm's system, which uses PPC, but the system can be compromised by ability or lack of compliance by sole practitioner, risk was assessed at moderate. Based on the risk assessment above, selected 2 of 10 audits (one in a unique industry), 1 of 2 reviews, and 1 of 20 full disclosure compilation engagements.
EXAMPLE 2
Inherent risk was assessed at medium to low because of the firm's industry concentrations in its client base and the lack of recent pronouncements issued in these industries, and because there is no professional staff other than owner. Control risk was assessed at low to medium due to the quality control policies and procedures in place and the firm's current maintenance of its library. Based on the risk assessment above, I selected an appropriate number of engagements and obtained a cross‑section of the firm's engagements.
EXAMPLE 3
Firm works in several specialized industries, however clients tend to be small and non‑complex. No significant new clients since last review and no new industries. Inherent risk assessed as moderate. Based on the results of prior peer reviews, the lack of turnover of the firm's employees and preliminary review of the firm's system of quality control, control risk is assessed as moderate. Based on risk assessments, selected audit and review from two industry concentrations. Balance of selection for coverage of levels of service.
EXAMPLE 4
The inherent and control risk is considered low to moderate. This is a single office firm, run by two partners, both of whom are responsible for accounting and auditing engagements. All of the firm's audits are HUD, which are high‑risk engagements. The firm's professional library is comprehensive and current and the partners perform pre‑ and post‑issuance reviews on all engagements. In addition, the prior peer review did not have any significant findings. Based on risk assessments, selected HUD audits and balance of selection for coverage of levels of service.
Back to Top
Directory of Peer Reviewers
The AICPA Peer Review Program has established specific standards for performing and reporting on reviews. The specific qualifications are set forth in the Standards for performing and reporting on reviews. The firms listed firm have expressed interest in publishing their firm in this directory. They are not the only firms that may be qualified to conduct reviews.
If you have questions about peer reviews in Colorado, please call Susan Vachereau at 303-741-8605, 800-523-9082 or email to svachereau@cocpa.org.
To view Client Categories click here
Anderson & Whitney, P.C.
AICPA Firm No. 10001437
5801 W. 11th St., Ste. 300
Greeley, CO 80634-4813
Fax number: (970) 352-1855
No. Of Professionals: 11-19
Contact: Alan Holmberg (970) 352-7990
Member No. 1139592
e-mail alan@awhitney.com
Client Categories:
2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 18, 110, 125, 135, 140, 155, 180, 186, 217, 222, 230, 260, 268, 320, 325, 335, 380, 385, 395, 400, 410, 420
Blair and Associates, P.C.
Collice P. Blair Jr., CPA, CFE
AICPA Firm No. 10095329
105 S.E. Frontier Drive, Ste A
Cedaredge, CO 81413-4020
Fax Number: (970) 856-2122
No. of Professionals: Sole Practitioner
Contact: Pete Blair (970) 856-7550
AICPA Member No. 1114856
e-mail: pete.blair@kaycee.net
Client Categories:
2, 3, 5, 9, 13, 110, 165, 175, 222, 260, 268, 308, 325, 420
Mary Brenes, CPA
AICPA Firm No. 10153116
P. O. Box 4655
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Fax number: 970-242-1698
No. Of Professionals: Sole Practitioner
Contact: Mary Brenes (970) 242-1698
AICPA Member No. 45878
e-mail brenescpa@gvii.net
Client Categories:
2, 5, 9, 13, 155, 186, 222, 260, 325, 420
Chervenak & Associates, P.C.
AICPA Firm No. 10091317
2655 W. Midway Blvd., Ste. 340
Broomfield, CO 80020
Fax Number: (303) 86-7080
No. Of Professionals: 2-5
Contact: Richard A. Chervenak (303) 786-8190
AICPA Member No: 140255
e-mail gr8cpa@aol.com
Client Categories:
2, 9, 155, 165, 260, 268
Gordon Hughes & Banks LLP
AICPA Firm No. 10018066
5299 DTC Blvd., Ste. 1000
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Fax Number: (303) 770-7581
No. Of Professionals: 50-99
Firm Also Enrolled in CPCAF
Contact: Peggy E. Topel (303) 770-5700
AIPCA Member No. 10867828
e-mail ptopel@ghbcpa.com
Client Categories:
1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 110, 155, 165, 180, 205, 260, 268, 308, 385, 400, 405, 410
Haynie and Company
AICPA Firm No.
1221 W Mineral Ave Ste #202
Littleton, CO 80231
Fax Number: (303) 795-3356
No. of Professionals: 50-60
Firm also enrolled in CPCAF
Contact: Raymond Russell (303) 734-4800
AICPA Member No. 739878
e-mail rayr@hayniecpas.com
Client Categories:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 135, 155, 165, 216, 222, 230, 250, 260, 320, 325, 380, 385
Marcia J. Hein, CPA
AICPA Firm No: 10155807
807 Marble Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Fax Number: (970) 282-8229
No. of Professionals: Sole Practitioner
Contact: Marcia J. Hein (970) 282-8229
AICPA Member No: 1141590
e-mail: Marcia@mjh-cpa.com
Client Categories:
2, 9, 10, 110, 165, 260, 385
Hiratsuka & Schmidt, LLP
AICPA Firm No: 10134883
1401 17th Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
Fax Number: (303) 295-6866
No. Of Professionals: 6-10
Contact: Don Gruenler (303) 295-7077
AICPA Member No. 1032173
e-mail dong@cpa-hs.com
Client Categories:
2, 5, 9, 13, 155, 222, 250, 260, 265, 320, 325
Robert L. Hoerr, P.C.
AICPA Firm No. 380989
950 Wadsworth Blvd., #204
Lakewood, CO 80214
Fax Number: (303) 232-9452
No. Of Professionals: Sole Practitioner
Contact: Robert Hoerr (303) 239-8706
AICPA Member No. 380989
e-mail rlhoerr@msn.com
Client Categories:
2, 9, 155, 165, 260, 325
Marc, James & Associates, P.C.
AICPA Firm No. 1163201
1745 Shea Center Drive, Ste 400
Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
Fax Number: (206) 888-2716
No. of Professionals: Sole Practitioner
Contact: Gregory Viergutz
AICPA Member No. 1163201
e-mail greg@marcjamescpa.com
Client Categories:
2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 18, 125, 155, 165, 175, 250, 260, 325, 380, 385, 400
Dennis L. Oberhelman, CPA
AICPA Firm No. 1019733
3819 St. Vrain St Suite B
Evans, CO 80620
Fax Number: (970) 506-9432
No. Of Professionals: Sole Practitioner
Contact: Dennis Oberhelman (970) 506-9431
AICPA Member No. 1019733
e-mail doberhelman@hotmail.com
Client Categories:
2, 5, 9, 222, 260, 325, 420
Larry O’Donnell, CPA, P.C.
AICPA Firm No. 1044947
2228 S. Fraser St. Unit 1
Aurora, CO 80014-4523
Fax Number: (303) 369-9384
No. Of Professionals: Sole Practitioner
Firm Also Enrolled in CPCAF
Contact: Larry O’Donnell (303) 745-4545
AICPA Member No. 1044947
e-mail larryodonnellcpa@msn.com
Client Categories:
1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 110, 135, 155, 165, 180, 185, 190, 205, 222, 230, 250, 260, 268, 270, 280, 285, 305, 340, 385, 395, 400, 405
Richey, May & Co., LLP
AICPA Firm No. 10084120
9605 S. Kingston Ct., Ste 200
Englewood, CO 80112
Fax Number: (303) 721-6232
No. Of Professionals: 11-19
Firm Also Enrolled in PCAOB
Contact: Keith May (303) 721-6131
AICPA Member No. 1128734
e-mail keith@richeymay.com
Client Categories:
1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, ,18, 125, 135, 155, 165, 180, 185, 186, 190, 222, 230, 250, 260, 265, 268, 270, 325, 380, 385, 400, 420
Rickards Long & Rulon , LLP
AICPA Firm No. 1053120
301 E Olive St.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Fax Number: (970) 484-1992
No. Of Professionals: 11-19
Contact: Jill Rickards (970) 493-6869
AICPA Member No. 1053120
e-mail jrickards@rlrcpas.com
Client Categories:
2, 3, 5, 110, 155, 165, 222, 260, 268, 270, 305
Sapp and Company, LLC
AICPA Firm No. 2080325
2855 S Devinney Ct., #202
P.O. Box 280956
Lakewood, CO 80228-0956
Fax Number: (303) 763-5521
No. of Professionals: 2-5
Contact: Michael Sapp (303)-985-9674
AICPA Member No. 13370
e-mail msappcpa@earthlink.net
Client Categories:
2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 18, 110, 125, 126, 155, 165, 175, 186, 190, 200, 205, 217, 222, 260, 268, 300, 310, 320, 325, 335, 420
Schulz & Company, P.C.
AICPA Firm No. 10099893
15200 E. Girard Ave., #4900
Aurora, CO 80014
Fax Number: (303) 690-9110
No. Of Professionals: 2-5
Contact: Michael Schulz (303) 690-7275
AICPA Member No. 763831
e-mail mike@schulzcocpa.com
Client Categories:
2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 18, 110, 125, 155, 165, 180, 185, 190, 205, 222, 260, 268, 385, 390, 400
Terry & Stephenson, P.C.
AICPA Firm No. 10093530
303 E. 17th Ave., #805
Denver, CO 80203
Fax Number: (303) 831-4948
No. Of Professionals: 11-19
Contact: Alan Terry (303)-831-1904
AICPA Member No. 852856
e-mail aterry@terrystephensonpc.com
Client Categories:
2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 120, 155, 222, 260, 268, 325, 380, 385, 395, 400, 410, 420
Yanari, Watson, McGaughey, P.C.
AICPA Firm No. 10091246
9250 E. Costilla Ave., #450
Englewood, CO 80112
Fax Number: (303) 792-5153
No. Of Professionals: 6-10
Firm Also Enrolled in CPCAF
Contact: Randy Watson 303-792-3020
AICPA Member No. 1003455
e-mail randy@ywmcpa.com
Client Categories:
2, 9, 10, 110, 120, 155, 160, 165, 190, 260, 268, 380, 385, 390, 395
Zarlengo Raub LLP
AICPA Firm No. 10031446
7100 W 44th Ave., #101
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Fax Number: (303) 420-3627
No. Of Professionals: 11-19
Timothy J. Raub (303) 421-4775
AICPA Member No. 01577333
e-mail traub@zarlengoraub.com
Client Categories:
2, 9, 165, 260, 325
Back to Top
|
|
