Appeal of Mays
161 N.H. 470
| N.H. | 2011Background
- Mays challenges the Board of Accountancy's denial of his CPA certificate application.
- Board denied because his Virginia experience with BearingPoint, Inc. allegedly did not qualify as public accounting under RSA 309-B:5, IX and Ac 302.03.
- Mays argued his experience complies with Rule 101.15 and RSA 309-B:5, IX, and that BearingPoint was a public accounting firm in Virginia.
- Board relied on BearingPoint not being registered as a Virginia public accounting firm and thus failed to meet the supervisory/firm-type requirements under the rule.
- Proceedings treated as certiorari review; court reviews for illegality, lack of authority, or abuse of discretion.
- Court held Rule 302.03(b)(1)(a) exceeds the Board's authority and invalidates it, reversing and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 302.03(b)(1) exceeds rulemaking authority | Mays argues Rule 302.03(b)(1)(a) adds to the statute | Board contends rule implements RSA 309-B:4 and 309-B:5, IX | Rule invalid; exceeds authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Appeal of N.H. Dep't of Transportation, 152 N.H. 565 (2005) (board may fill in details, but not modify statute)
- Kimball v. N.H. Bd. Of Accountancy, 118 N.H. 567 (1978) (rulemaking scope and statutory compliance)
- Suburban Realty, Inc. v. Albin, 131 N.H. 689 (1989) (statutory interpretation of fill-in-the-details rules)
- Appeal of Anderson, 147 N.H. 181 (2001) (rules cannot add to or modify statute requirements)
- Petition of Hoyt, 143 N.H. 533 (1999) (standard of review for administrative decisions)