Verify a CPA license and understand what peer review covers

A CPA credential belongs to an identifiable person, and a firm's registration or permit is a separate question where required. Ask for the full professional name, licensing jurisdiction, license number, and role in your assignment. Match that information to the person who will provide or supervise the regulated service, rather than a founder's biography elsewhere on the website.

NASBA describes CPAverify as a public search tool using official licensing data supplied by boards of accountancy. Use it as a starting point, then consult the relevant board when a record is unclear, a jurisdiction is missing, or a disciplinary indicator needs explanation. Check the record's dates and status rather than assuming that passing the CPA examination establishes current practice authority.

Record the date of your check and retain the result with the selection evidence. Similar names, former surnames, multiple licenses, and firm name changes can produce confusing matches. Resolve identity with the provider and official board. Do not infer misconduct merely because the first search returns no result.

Describe the required deliverable precisely. Bookkeeping, tax preparation, a financial statement review, an audit, and consulting are different assignments. The provider should explain which professional or firm is responsible and what authority applies in the relevant jurisdiction. A broad claim that the team has CPAs does not answer who signs a particular report.

California's Board of Accountancy explicitly distinguishes a CPA's authority to sign attest reports from competence gained through relevant knowledge and experience. Its guidance also explains that license status affects practice rights. These are California-specific details, not a substitute for checking another state's rules. Ask the appropriate board or professional when an interstate arrangement is unclear.

When peer review is relevant, request the actual report, covered period, review type, acceptance information, and any accompanying response or remediation documents that the firm can provide. Check the firm's identity. A report for a predecessor or affiliated practice may need explanation before you treat it as evidence about the proposed engagement.

AICPA describes system reviews and engagement reviews as different examinations of a firm's accounting and auditing work. It also explains that many reports are available through its Public File. Review availability varies, so a missing public report is not enough to conclude that the firm failed a review. Ask the firm or administering body for the appropriate evidence.

A peer review does not individually inspect every future client assignment. It also should not be presented as a universal certification of payroll operations, software security, or day-to-day bookkeeping responsiveness. Read the report's scope and conclusion with someone who understands the professional terminology if the distinction affects your buying decision.

If a report identifies deficiencies or the licensing record indicates disciplinary information, obtain the underlying official explanation. Establish the issue, timing, scope, resolution, and any current restrictions. Ask how the relevant process changed. Avoid relying on a sales summary that says everything was resolved without showing the supporting record.

Consider relevance as well as severity. A finding in the same type of specialized engagement you need deserves particular attention. An unrelated old matter may still merit review, but it should not be described as a current defect without evidence. Your decision record should distinguish verified facts, the provider's explanation, and questions that remain unanswered.

Confirm that the proposed reviewer remains assigned, that the required service is included, and that material staffing or firm changes will be communicated. Keep the qualification check separate from the evaluation of sample work, reference calls, pricing, and access controls. Each answers a different question.

For an ongoing relationship, repeat relevant checks when the responsible professional changes, the firm changes its legal structure, or you add a regulated service. There is little value in continually refreshing an unchanged screenshot while ignoring a new person signing the reports. Focus the review on the facts on which your original approval depended.

The finished record should name the professional and firm, state the source and date of verification, explain relevant peer-review scope, and list any accepted limitations. That gives the next person managing the engagement a usable starting point instead of an unqualified note saying the accountant was checked.