AB 1175 establishes a practice privilege that lets an individual whose principal place of business is outside California and who holds a current, active out‑of‑state public accountancy license perform public accountancy in California without obtaining a California certificate or license, subject to a set of conditions. The measure forbids the California Board from imposing a notice, fee, or other barrier simply to exercise the privilege, but it limits certain engagements (audits, some compilations, and examinations of prospective financial information for entities headquartered in California) to work done through a California‑registered CPA firm.
The bill matters because it expands cross‑border mobility for accountants while keeping California’s regulatory reach: privilege holders become subject to the California Board’s jurisdiction, must cooperate with investigations, meet notification deadlines for criminal or disciplinary events, and face mandatory cessation and minimum penalties if they fail to comply. Firms and regulators will need new compliance and oversight processes to manage the hybrid regime.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a limited practice privilege for non‑California accountants with a current out‑of‑state license to practice in California without a California license, forbids the board from charging a fee for the privilege, and restricts certain services for California‑headquartered entities to registered California CPA firms.
Who It Affects
Out‑of‑state individuals who hold an active license to practice public accountancy, California‑registered CPA firms that will host or engage those individuals, the California Board of Accountancy, and California entities that use accounting services (especially those headquartered in California).
Why It Matters
It changes how states police multi‑jurisdictional accounting work by combining interstate mobility with California enforcement tools, shifting compliance burden to firms and creating routine reporting and investigatory duties for regulators.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill lets a non‑resident individual who maintains their principal place of business outside California and who holds a current, active license to practice public accountancy in another state perform public accountancy services in California under a defined practice privilege. The privilege removes the basic licensing barrier — the individual does not need a California certificate — and the Board cannot require a separate notice or fee merely to exercise this privilege.
That said, the statute draws clear lines: some services for entities with headquarters in California may only be provided through a California firm that has the board registration required by Section 5096.12.
While the privilege eases market access, the bill makes privilege holders subject to California’s regulatory oversight. The individual is explicitly subject to both personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the California Board and courts, must cooperate with investigations, and is required to respond to subpoenas and demands for documents.
For continuing education, the bill accepts the continuing education met in the licensee’s home state as satisfying California’s requirements for the purposes of this privilege.Operational rules create practical limits. A privilege holder may not provide public accountancy services from any office located in California unless they are an employee of a California‑registered firm; they may, however, visit a client in California and work at the client’s site.
The statute also designates the regulator in the licensee’s home state as the agent for service of process related to board actions, which is intended to simplify cross‑jurisdiction communications but creates a reliance on other states’ administrative apparatus.The bill builds in event‑driven obligations and timelines. Privilege holders must stop practicing in California if their home‑state regulator imposes certain discipline or if they are convicted of crimes involving dishonesty, barred by the SEC or PCAOB, or suspended from governmental practice.
It also imposes short notice deadlines — for example, 30 days to report pending criminal charges and 15 days to inform the board when required to cease practice — and prescribes minimum periods during which the individual may not practice in California if they fail to comply. The Board is given a recurring monitoring role: it must consult the PCAOB and SEC at least every six months to identify out‑of‑state licensees who might have disqualifying conditions and disclose whether they are permitted to exercise the privilege.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute authorizes a practice privilege for an individual whose principal place of business is outside California and who holds a current, active out‑of‑state public accountancy license, allowing practice in California without a California license.
Audits or reviews of financial statements for entities headquartered in California, certain compilations when independence isn’t disclosed, and examinations of prospective financial information for California‑headquartered entities may be performed only through a California firm that has registered under Section 5096.12.
Privilege holders must report any pending criminal charges (other than minor traffic violations) within 30 days of learning of them, and must notify the board within 15 calendar days when they are required to cease practice under specified disciplinary or conviction triggers.
If an individual fails to cease practice or to provide required notice, the board treats the privilege as if it were a license and imposes a minimum one‑year prohibition on practicing in California; if the board finds the failure intentional, the board must revoke the privilege for at least two years.
The board must consult the PCAOB and the SEC at least twice a year to identify out‑of‑state licensees with potential disqualifying conditions and disclose whether those licensees are lawfully permitted to exercise the privilege; that disclosure is explicitly not considered discipline.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Establishes the practice privilege and bars routine fees or notices
Subdivisions (a) and (b) create the core entitlement: an out‑of‑state individual with a current, active public accountancy license and a principal place of business outside California may practice here under a practice privilege without obtaining a California certificate. The board cannot impose a notice, fee, or other requirement simply because the individual is operating under the privilege. Practically, that removes the standard licensing gate while preserving other regulatory hooks elsewhere in the statute.
Limits certain engagements to California‑registered firms
Subdivision (c) lists three classes of services tied to entities headquartered in California — audits/reviews, certain compilations, and examinations of prospective financial information — that an out‑of‑state privilege holder may provide only through a California firm that has the registration mandated by Section 5096.12. This is a functional control: the state allows remote or nonresident practitioners but channels higher‑risk attest and forward‑looking work through firms subject to California registration and oversight.
Jurisdiction, compliance obligations, and operational limits
Subdivision (d) makes privilege holders subject to California’s personal and subject‑matter jurisdiction and disciplinary authority, requires cooperation with board investigations, and accepts out‑of‑state continuing education as meeting California’s CE requirements for the privilege. It also prohibits providing services from any California office unless the individual is an employee of a California‑registered firm (clients’ premises are exempt), and designates the licensee’s home‑state regulator as an agent for service of process, creating a formal channel for cross‑border enforcement.
Cease‑practice triggers, notice deadlines, and sanctions for noncompliance
These subdivisions impose event‑driven duties: when specified disciplinary actions, criminal convictions involving dishonesty, SEC/PCAOB bars, or similar governmental suspensions occur, the individual must stop practicing in California and notify the board within 15 days using a board form. The board must keep the individual off the privilege until it grants written permission to resume. Failure to cease or to notify converts the privilege into a de facto license violation with minimum one‑year exclusion; intentional failures produce a mandatory two‑year bar from practice.
Seven‑year lookback disclosure before exercising the privilege
Subdivision (h) requires individuals who, within the prior seven years, have had final disciplinary actions, reinstatements after suspension or revocation, denials of licensure, convictions (other than minor traffic offenses), pending charges, or other disqualifying conditions to notify the board on a prescribed form and to obtain written board permission before practicing in California. This pre‑clearance regime creates an upfront screening step for recent adverse matters.
Recurring information sharing with PCAOB and SEC
Subdivision (j) instructs the board to consult the PCAOB and the SEC at least once every six months to identify out‑of‑state licensees who may have disqualifying conditions and to disclose whether each is lawfully permitted to exercise the privilege. The statute clarifies that such disclosure is not itself discipline, positioning the board as an active monitor that leverages federal oversight to detect supervisory problems.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Out‑of‑state licensed accountants: Gain market access in California without obtaining a California certificate, expanding client opportunity with fewer procedural barriers.
- California entities (clients): Obtain access to a larger pool of specialized or multi‑state accounting talent, particularly for non‑attest or advisory work.
- Multi‑state CPA firms: Can deploy staff licensed elsewhere to serve California clients more flexibly, provided the work is routed through a California‑registered firm where required.
- California‑registered firms: Benefit commercially by hosting privilege holders for certain services and charging for firm supervision and registration services.
Who Bears the Cost
- California Board of Accountancy: Faces increased compliance, monitoring, and investigatory workload, including semiannual coordination with federal regulators and enforcement of notification deadlines.
- Out‑of‑state privilege holders: Assume new administrative and reporting burdens (30‑day criminal notice, 15‑day cessation notice), exposure to California discipline, and the risk of multi‑year exclusions for notification failures.
- California‑registered firms: Must manage supervision and possible vicarious liability for privilege holders’ work, and maintain or obtain firm registration under Section 5096.12 to perform certain services.
- California‑licensed CPAs: May face sharper competition from out‑of‑state practitioners for certain engagements, particularly advisory or specialized work that does not require an attest pathway through a registered firm.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals — increasing interstate mobility for qualified accountants and protecting California clients and markets through state oversight — but those goals pull in opposite directions: greater mobility reduces licensing friction and increases competition, while meaningful protection of California stakeholders requires enforceable oversight, effective information sharing, and sometimes blunt sanctions that limit mobility.
The statute leans on cross‑jurisdictional coordination but leaves several practical questions unresolved. Key terms — most notably "principal place of business," "headquartered in California," and the threshold for when a compilation is sufficiently likely to be third‑party‑used — will determine how widely the privilege is used and which engagements must flow through a registered firm.
Those definitions matter for remote work and for employees of multi‑state firms who may split time between states.
Enforcement will rely heavily on information sharing with other state regulators, the PCAOB, and the SEC, creating operational pressure on the California Board to maintain automated checks and manual follow‑up. The statutory minimum penalties for failure to cease or to notify are blunt instruments: a mandatory one‑year ban (and a two‑year mandatory bar for intentional violations) gives the board little flexibility to calibrate penalties to misconduct severity.
Finally, the provision that accepts home‑state continuing education as meeting California’s CE for privilege holders eases mobility but could create a mismatch in substantive training expectations across jurisdictions, undermining a uniform standard of practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.