California CPA exam candidates, have you see a link floating around about Senate Bill 823 which will give California CPA exam candidates additional time to meet the 150 hour requirement for licensure? We know you have because a few of you have sent it to us. Of course, I didn't cover it because when I couldn't find a single mention of the "facts" in that article from either CalCPA or the CBA, I knew something was up.
THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S WRONG. From the CBA Facebook page:
MISINFORMATION ALERT! There is some misinformation being passed around the Internet about the new educational requirements set to take effect on January 1, 2014. Since you're here, we hope you'll read and share "the real deal" with your friends and colleagues.
The CBA is sponsoring Senate Bill 823, to extend the deadline for CPA licensure under the two existing pathways. However, if this legislation passes, the extended deadline will only apply to individuals who have passed all four parts of the Uniform CPA Exam by December 31, 2013. It will not afford an individual any additional time to pass the Uniform CPA Exam.
If you receive a link to a website or WordPress article that says otherwise, please inform the individual who shared the correct information.
I am not going to link to the website in question for obvious reasons but basically they said in no uncertain terms that an extension "allows more time for current license candidates to study for CPA exam completion." As the CBA points out, that other part is just wrong. SB 823 does not apply to anyone who hasn't passed the exam by December 31, 2013. But assuming you've passed by then, and assuming SB 823 is signed into law, prospective CPAs in California will have extra time to pick up the required educational units.
Remember, always exercise that professional skepticism and when in doubt, check directly with your state board of accountancy to make sure you have your facts straight.
Note: SB 823 was previously covered on Going Concern (correctly, blockquoting as much of the CBA's own words as possible because sometimes even we get facts wrong) here.