Imagine needing approval from a private corporation to drive across state lines. That’s what NASBA and AICPA's proposed changes to the Uniform Accountancy Act could mean for CPAs.

On The Accounting Podcast, we've been exploring mobility, substantial equivalency, and the future of CPA licensing.

And it's clear: NASBA wants more power.

The proposed plan gives NASBA power over where CPAs can practice by setting up a national licensee database to track which CPAs have education and experience that is "substantially equivalent" and which are not. Essentially, a private corporation would have oversight that’s supposed to be handled by state boards.

State boards are government entities, yet NASBA—a private organization—wants to take over more control of licensure functions. It's almost like a federal agency, except this one isn't accountable to taxpayers.

Because NASBA and AICPA have dragged their feet on the 150-hour rule, some states are considering adopting "automatic mobility" for CPAs.

Automatic mobility means that a CPA licensed in one state would be automatically granted permission to serve clients in another state without first having to prove that they have the exact right number of credit hours on a transcript or that they took the required classes ten years ago in school.

NASBA is afraid that automatic mobility will undermine its power. It sent an email to state societies and boards of accountancy warning that automatic mobility could be unconstitutional because it would allow one state to dictate licensure qualifications for another.

But automatic mobility isn't about surrendering control; it's about recognizing credentials—like a driver’s license—to benefit the economy by facilitating commerce among the states.

If automatic mobility is unconstitutional, how is NASBA’s centralized approach any different? The contradiction is obvious.

We need to restore power to the state boards of accountancy. States can work together to ensure CPAs can operate seamlessly across borders without unnecessary bureaucracy. Let’s not give more power to unaccountable entities.

I’d love to hear from those in state societies and boards of accountancy: What do you think about NASBA’s move here? If you're concerned, you're not alone—there’s a better way forward.

Also, while we’re talking about making the profession more attractive, let’s not forget the root issues: long hours, low pay, and dwindling talent in public accounting.

What are NASBA and the AICPA doing about that?