Rosa v. Cal. Bd. of Accountancy
Rosa v. Cal. Bd. of Accountancy
02:10:2006
Rosa v. Cal. Bd. of Accountancy
Filed 2/3/06 Rosa v. Cal. Bd. of Accountancy CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
BERNARD JOSEPH ROSA, JR.,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY,
Defendant and Respondent.
C048070
(Super. Ct. No. 04CS00519)
Bernard Joseph Rosa, Jr., appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of mandate, in which he challenged the California Board of Accountancy's denial of his petition for reinstatement as a certified public accountant. We affirm.
FACTS
Rosa was licensed as a California certified public accountant (CPA) in 1969. In 1993, the Board of Accountancy (Board) accused Rosa of committing numerous acts of unprofessional conduct between 1989 and 1991.
In 1994, Rosa waived his right to a hearing on the charges and entered into a written stipulation, which the Board adopted as its decision on the accusation. He admitted he was guilty of unprofessional conduct under Business and Professions Code section 5100, having committed acts of misleading advertising, failure to comply with continuing education requirements, breach of fiduciary responsibility, fraud, dishonesty, and gross negligence in his practice.
His wrongful acts included: misleading advertising regarding tax avoidance schemes from 1989 to 1990; practicing with an expired CPA license from 1990 to 1991; failure to fulfill continuing education requirements for separate license renewal periods ending in 1988 and 1990; knowing dissemination of misleading financial information and gross negligence in preparing a tax return for a specific client using an illegal tax avoidance scheme; and counseling clients to back-date and otherwise fraudulently execute documents as part of a tax avoidance scheme to eliminate paying self-employment tax.
As part of the stipulation, the Board revoked Rosa's CPA license, stayed revocation, suspended his license for two months, and placed Rosa on probation for three years. Rosa waived his right to appeal the Board's decision. He also agreed to reimburse the Board $5,000 for its investigation and prosecution costs.
In 1995, the Board accused Rosa of violating the terms of his probation. Following an administrative hearing, the Board revoked Rosa's license. It determined Rosa violated a number of probation terms, including practicing public accounting with a suspended license, failing to obey all laws, failing to submit quarterly reports timely, failing to notify the Board of an out-of-state practice and residence, failing to take and pass an ethics course, failing to pay the $5,000 in costs, and failing to take 80 hours of continuing education. The Board also required Rosa to pay an additional $10,500.37 in costs. Rosa did not challenge this decision.
In 1999, the Board denied Rosa's first petition for reinstatement, finding he continued improperly to represent to the public he was a CPA, and he continued â€
02:10:2006
Filed 2/3/06 Rosa v. Cal. Bd. of Accountancy CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
BERNARD JOSEPH ROSA, JR.,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY,
Defendant and Respondent.
C048070
(Super. Ct. No. 04CS00519)
Bernard Joseph Rosa, Jr., appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of mandate, in which he challenged the California Board of Accountancy's denial of his petition for reinstatement as a certified public accountant. We affirm.
FACTS
Rosa was licensed as a California certified public accountant (CPA) in 1969. In 1993, the Board of Accountancy (Board) accused Rosa of committing numerous acts of unprofessional conduct between 1989 and 1991.
In 1994, Rosa waived his right to a hearing on the charges and entered into a written stipulation, which the Board adopted as its decision on the accusation. He admitted he was guilty of unprofessional conduct under Business and Professions Code section 5100, having committed acts of misleading advertising, failure to comply with continuing education requirements, breach of fiduciary responsibility, fraud, dishonesty, and gross negligence in his practice.
His wrongful acts included: misleading advertising regarding tax avoidance schemes from 1989 to 1990; practicing with an expired CPA license from 1990 to 1991; failure to fulfill continuing education requirements for separate license renewal periods ending in 1988 and 1990; knowing dissemination of misleading financial information and gross negligence in preparing a tax return for a specific client using an illegal tax avoidance scheme; and counseling clients to back-date and otherwise fraudulently execute documents as part of a tax avoidance scheme to eliminate paying self-employment tax.
As part of the stipulation, the Board revoked Rosa's CPA license, stayed revocation, suspended his license for two months, and placed Rosa on probation for three years. Rosa waived his right to appeal the Board's decision. He also agreed to reimburse the Board $5,000 for its investigation and prosecution costs.
In 1995, the Board accused Rosa of violating the terms of his probation. Following an administrative hearing, the Board revoked Rosa's license. It determined Rosa violated a number of probation terms, including practicing public accounting with a suspended license, failing to obey all laws, failing to submit quarterly reports timely, failing to notify the Board of an out-of-state practice and residence, failing to take and pass an ethics course, failing to pay the $5,000 in costs, and failing to take 80 hours of continuing education. The Board also required Rosa to pay an additional $10,500.37 in costs. Rosa did not challenge this decision.
In 1999, the Board denied Rosa's first petition for reinstatement, finding he continued improperly to represent to the public he was a CPA, and he continued â€
| Description | A decision on writ of mandate. |
| Rating |
