It’s official: alternate CPA pathways have busted out of their Midwestern containment. Just like the AICPA worried they would when Minnesota started rebelling against them.
Although it still has to be signed by the governor to become law, House Bill 148 was passed by Georgia senators last week with 52 Yes votes which means the Peach State is only a pen stroke away from having a second, non-150 hour pathway to CPA licensure. The bill passed the House in February.
As with similar laws we’ve seen roll through state legislatures since Minnesota was the first to upset the applecart, Georgia would retain the existing 150 hour path as an option. If Governor Kemp gives his OK, Georgia would actually have two additional pathways, according to this handy dandy chart from Georgia Society of CPAs:
It goes without saying GSCPA is thrilled. Here’s their press release:
HB148, requested by GSCPA, introduces two pathways to CPA licensure beginning January 1, 2026. Candidates can now qualify with a master’s degree in accounting or taxation and one year of relevant experience or a bachelor’s degree in accounting and two years of pertinent experience. These alternatives complement the existing pathway of a bachelor’s degree with 150 semester hours and one year of experience, reducing barriers and fostering a more inclusive profession. Additionally, HB 148 establishes practice privilege requirements, making it easier for out-of-state CPAs to practice in Georgia. This ensures that Georgia businesses have seamless access to top-tier accounting expertise, regardless of state boundaries.
Boyd Search, CEO of GSCPA, emphasized the bill’s significance, stating, “The new pathways to CPA licensure and expanded practice privilege mobility are essential steps toward addressing the growing demand for skilled accounting professionals. By allowing greater access to licensure and enabling CPAs to move freely across state lines, Georgia is positioning itself as a leader in the profession, ensuring that we continue to attract top talent from both within and outside the state.”
Kathryn Fletcher, chair of GSCPA, added, “In today’s dynamic economy, it’s crucial that we evolve our licensing standards to meet the changing needs of both the profession and the businesses we serve. These added pathways and the broader practice mobility are key to maintaining Georgia’s reputation as a hub for accounting excellence and will help foster a more sustainable future for the profession.”
The passage of HB 148 marks a pivotal moment for CPAs in Georgia, modernizing the licensure framework to better align with professional demands and demographic shifts. By reducing barriers to entry and facilitating practice privilege mobility, the bill supports the growth and adaptability of the accounting profession and enhances the quality of financial services available to Georgia’s business community.
Representatives John Carson, CPA, and David Wilkerson, and Senator Billy Hickman, CPA, were personally thanked by GSCPA for their dedication to advancing the accounting profession in Georgia. “Expanding the pathways to the CPA license and broadening practice privilege mobility is vital to ensuring that Georgia remains a competitive and attractive place for accounting professionals,” said Carson in a GSCPA fact sheet. “By offering more flexible routes to licensure, we empower a range of candidates to enter and thrive in the CPA profession, which in turn strengthens our state’s economy and business landscape.”
Under the new rule, out-of-state CPAs will be allowed to practice in Georgia as long as they have a CPA license in good standing in their home state and meet Georgia education requirements. “They are welcome in Georgia without any need for a second state license,” said GSCPA.
According to this, “dozens” of states are plotting to get similar bills through.
We’ll keep you posted on what happens next.
I will never understand why Path 1 was the default, terrible decision but not surprising with how things in the profession are going right now.
Path 2 always seemed like it should’ve been the default and save people tens of thousands (aka me who spent around 30k on a masters) and they would’ve been much happier with the compensation and career trajectory…instead of hosing people out of tens of thousands of dollars worth of student debt and creating this massive disconnect between expectations and reality.
The original intention of 150 — at least according to my understanding from reviewing historical papers prior to its widespread adoption — was to create more well-rounded CPAs. Specifically, a 1988 AICPA report says:
So they visualized CPAs with liberal arts education in addition to their accounting education. On paper it sounds good to me, accounting as a career is rarely just performing accounting tasks in a vacuum. But since they didn’t require actual courses, and because the additional education requirement didn’t result in the increased salaries you’d expect from a mandatory 5th year of education, it didn’t do what they presumably intended. Maybe if 150 still produced better quality CPAs they could continue to justify it but that didn’t happen either.
The success of the entire thing hinged on firms doing their part to make the additional education literally worth it. I don’t imagine the AICPA put a lot of pressure on them, even now with the pipeline what it is they’re reluctant to come out and say salaries and WLB are major contributors to the problem.
But who cares now, they’re just going to keep opening up international testing centers and paying overseas staff pennies on the dollar. Problem solved!
Apologies for this long-ass comment, I nerd out on this topic.
I think understand that but what I didn’t understand what how the AICPA tricked itself into believing in a dream…and then taking us all down with them as the ship began to sink.
Also I think they thought everything was fine because the cost of additional education back in the 80s/90s was nowhere near it was today…could you imagine if they made that decision today while remaining the course for the last two decades? It was be an actual disaster.
The AICPA is finding new ways to be irrelevant. Their CPE resources aren’t great, the ethics enforcement is in total shambles, the dues keep going up, etc. They only care about grabbing our money. My peer reviewer had a question related to contingent fees and left a message to an AICPA director. Never heard back.
Good for GSCPA.
How can someone get a masters in accounting and NOT have 150 hours?
Path 3 seems a little odd.
Path 1 only ever made sense if you had some meat in the actual courses. The classes taught in most masters courses do not provide any real advanced value, unless you want to go into teaching accounting. An extra year of actual experience is more valuable than an extra year of dumb classes that don’t teach you anything useful.
Path 1 made perfect sense….if the objective was to reduce the number of CPAs and candidates in the US. I think that was a feature and not a bug right from the beginning – mission accomplished. Increasing the cost of education required to get a CPA by 25% (in terms of both $$ and time) without increasing the value to the employer was only ever going to have one outcome.
Big 4 Partners – not enough junior accountants in the US, shucks guess we’ll have to hire a few thousand more in India for 1/3 the cost.