Showing News Items: 1120 of 176

Who Uses a CPA?

November 15, 2018
thumbnail image
This September, the Arizona Society of CPAs commissioned a poll to study voter support for Proposition 126 (income tax conformity) and to determine who uses a CPA. Arizona voters were asked how they use a CPA and who they use to prepare their tax returns.

The Sum and Substance of a Recruiting Partnership

November 5, 2018
A regional CPA firm ranked in the Top 100 CPA firms in America, specializing in tax, auditing and accounting, and advisory services, needed an experienced recruiting partner to assist them with multiple positions throughout the Southwest. Previously they were using a contingency recruiter paying a percentage of the candidate’s salary and the costs were skyrocketing. Due to the volume of hires, they needed to find a cost-effective solution. -Sponsored Content

Legislative and Accountancy Board Update – August 2018

August 21, 2018
This month’s update includes information about a special event with Governor Ducey’s Chief of Staff Kirk Adams, Representative Weninger’s Facebook Live session, an update on the two tax propositions on the November ballot, an update on Accountancy Board activities, a reminder about CPA license renewal dates and a PAC update.

Legislative and Accountancy Board Update – July 2018

July 16, 2018
This month’s update includes information about two tax propositions that were filed for placement on the November ballot, the State Board of Accountancy’s summary of changes related to new legislation, the Board’s plan to change some rules and an ASCPA PAC update.

Supreme Court Overturns Quill’s Physical Presence Requirement

June 22, 2018
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 21 held that states can assert nexus for sales and use tax purposes without requiring a seller’s physical presence in the state. The decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., et al, No. 17-494 (U.S. 6/21/2018), overturns prior Supreme Court precedent in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 (1967), both of which had required retailers to have a physical presence in a state beyond merely shipping goods into a state after an order from an in-state resident before a state could require the seller to collect sales taxes from in-state customers.