Abstract
BackgroundCertified public accountants must follow very high standards of ethical conduct as set forth by the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and individual state licensing requirements. A 2019 grounded theory qualitative study posed that CPAs remain largely hesitant to serve the cannabis industry primarily because they fear federal prosecution as long as cannabis remains on the DEA’s Schedule I Drug List. The purpose of this research was to determine the perceptions of CPAs regarding providing accounting services to the cannabis industry in states that have legalized cannabis usage. This study investigated whether CPAs would serve the industry, why they might decline to serve the industry, what risks they believe serving the industry posed, and whether they believe serving the cannabis industry would create a moral or ethical issue.MethodsThis follow-up quantitative study investigated a small convenience sample of approximately one hundred CPAs in Colorado and Washington to learn more about their perceptions of serving the cannabis industry. Data was analyzed using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests to determine if there were any differences in perceptions between groups such as states, gender, and age categories.ResultsOf the participants, 77% responded that neither they nor their firm provided services to a cannabis-related business client compared to 23% that did serve cannabis clients. More Colorado CPAs were willing to turn down CRB work than were expected and fewer Colorado CPAs would be willing to take on CRB clients than were expected. While in Washington, fewer CPAs would turn down RB clients than expected, and more are willing to accept CRB clients than were expected. The risk due to potential liability coverage issues due to serving the cannabis industry was rated the highest while the risk of losing the CPA license was rated lowest. Data indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference between Colorado and Washington participants related to whether they were morally or religiously opposed to working in the industry or if they viewed serving the industry as an ethical violation.ConclusionCPAs remain largely unwilling to serve the cannabis industry primarily because CPAs fear federal prosecution as long as cannabis remains on the DEA’s Schedule I Drug Listing. The results of this study indicate that while most CPAs are not morally or religiously opposed to serving the industry, about half still believe doing so may constitute an ethical violation for a CPA.
Highlights
Certified public accountants (CPAs) must follow the Code of Professional Conduct set forth by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and individual state codes of conduct
After cleansing the data for CPAs who are not licensed in Colorado or Washington, a data set with n = 96 CPAs was obtained
More Colorado CPAs were willing to turn down Cannabis-related business (CRB) work than were expected, and fewer Colorado CPAs would be willing to take on CRB clients than were expected
Summary
As a result of these high ethical standards, many CPAs are hesitant, if not completely unwilling, to provide services to the cannabis industry even in states where cannabis has been legalized for medical or recreational use. This quantitative study investigated CPAs’ ethical perceptions of serving the cannabis industry in Colorado and Washington, the two states with the most mature cannabis laws and industries. These differences of opinion continue to be debated in the legal system and, in the political arena (Pew Research Center 2015) This conflict between federal and state laws, as well as the dichotomy of viewpoints, creates the business problem addressed by this study
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.