O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
(a) Nothing contained in this chapter shall prohibit any individual who is not a certified public accountant from serving as an employee of or an assistant to a certified public accountant or firm of certified public accountants holding a license, provided that such employee or assistant shall not issue or attest to any accounting or financial statement over his or her name. (b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall prohibit any person from offering to perform or performing for the public, for compensation, any of the following services: (1) The recording of financial transactions in books of record; (2) The making of adjustments of such transactions in books of record; (3) The making of trial balances from books of record; (4) Internal verification and analysis of books or accounts of original entry; (5) The preparation of unaudited financial statements, schedules, or reports; (6) The devising and installing of systems or methods of bookkeeping, internal controls of financial data, or the recording of financial data; or
(7) The preparation of tax returns and related forms.
History
Code 1933, § 84-216, enacted by Ga. L. 1977, p. 1063, § 1; Code 1981, § 43-3-36; Ga. L. 1983, p. 559, § 16; Ga. L. 1993, p. 123, § 16; Code 1981, § 43-3-32, as redesignated by Ga. L. 2014, p. 136, § 1-2/HB 291; Ga. L. 2015, p. 325, § 17/HB 246.
Annotations
Cross references. Substantial equivalency practice privileges for nonresidents, § 43-3-18.
Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2014, p. 136, § 1-2/HB 291, effective July 1, 2014, redesignated former Code Section 43-3-32 as present Code Section 43-3-29.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Conduct alleged in complaint did not constitute practice of public accountancy. - Since: (1) the defendants performed an audit as a matter of private agreement pursuant to subcontracts between the parties; (2) the plaintiff did not allege that the defendants held themselves out as licensed public accountants or that the defendants performed accounting services for clients; and (3) acting at
all times as employees of the defendant corporation, the individual defendants merely verified and analyzed the plaintiff’s books and accounts for the benefit of the defendant corporation, the defendants did not practice public accountancy. Project Control Servs., Inc. v. Reynolds, 247 Ga. App. 889, 545 S.E.2d 593, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 153 (2001).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Practices forbidden by state deceptive
trade practice and consumer protection acts, 89 A.L.R.3d 449.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case:
Crews v. Wahl, 520 S.E.2d 727 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Crews v. Wahl, 520 S.E.2d 727 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 20× “Under OCGA § 43-3-32 (a): All statements, records, schedules, working papers, computer printouts, computer tapes, and memoranda made by a certified public accountant or public accountant incident to, or in the course of, professional service to clients .”
Christenbury v. Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP, 285 F.R.D. 675 (N.D. Ga. 2012).
· cites it 4× “2 This follows from Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which provides that “in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political…”
Roberts v. Chaple, 369 S.E.2d 482 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “t, during this period, they provided the appellees with certain confidential information with the expectation that the information would not be disclosed to third parties but would remain strictly confidential, yet the appellees voluntarily released some of this information to…”
In Re Hall Cnty. Grand Jury Proceedings, 333 S.E.2d 389 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The accountant-client privilege is established by OCGA § 43-3-32 (b). “Due to the similarity of our statutory privileges for the clients of attorneys and accountants .”
Providers Fid. Life Ins. v. Tidewater Grp., Inc. (In Re Tidewater Grp., Inc.), 65 B.R. 179 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1986).
· cites it 3× “Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides: Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a witness, person, government,…”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bowen Motors, Inc., 306 S.E.2d 675 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “The testimony was excluded on the basis of the accountant-client privilege of OCGA § 43-3-32 (Code Ann. § 84-220). It is elemental that the predicate for the assertion of such a privilege is that an accountant-client relationship existed.”
Inspector Gen. of the United States Dep't of Agric. v. Griffin, 972 F. Supp. 676 (M.D. Ga. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Rule 501 states, in pertinent part: [I]n civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be…”
Gary W. Johnson v. Lindsay Pope Brayfield & Assocs., Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “3 The statute provides: “No employer shall discharge, expel, refuse to hire, or otherwise discriminate against any person or applicant for employment because such person has opposed any practice made an unfair employment practice by this chapter[.”
Driscoll v. Shuttler, 115 F.R.D. 571 (N.D. Ga. 1987).
“§ 43-3-32(b). The accountant has no right to waive that privilege and must obtain written consent from its client to testify regarding privileged matters.”
— 43-3-32(b) — 1 case
Driscoll v. Shuttler, 115 F.R.D. 571 (N.D. Ga. 1987).
“§ 43-3-32(b). The accountant has no right to waive that privilege and must obtain written consent from its client to testify regarding privileged matters.”
— 43-3-32(b)(4) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.