Certified Public Accountants have a little-known competitive advantage that’s the envy of many professionally licensed occupations. The license they earn in their home state allows them to practice in every jurisdiction in the U.S. except Hawaii, with no advance notice, fees or additional administrative steps required provided they remain in good standing. Think of the freedom your state-issued driver’s license gives you if you travel by car, and you get a sense of the business benefits that “CPA mobility” bestows — and the burdens that could arise if the system falls apart.

CPA mobility is a simple concept, but one that only came into being through decades of painstaking, coordinated action by those in the accounting profession. It’s built on a set of shared assumptions about what constitutes an equivalent license from state to state, elements of which had to be advocated for and then codified into law through an interwoven web of state statutes. Here it’s important to understand that there is no national CPA license and only states have the power to confer the designation.

Not surprisingly, there are minor variations in state laws, but the common understanding of what constitutes equivalency in licensure boils down to the three “Es” — 150 credit hours of education, passage of the CPA Exam, and a year’s worth of professional experience.

This type of mobility offers advantages for both CPAs and their employers. For businesses, the chief ones are time and expense. For example, accountants on a CFO’s finance team can now work on projects for business units located nearly anywhere in the country. Without the current system that allows mobility, finance leaders could be constrained when assigning CPAs to projects.

There has been much discussion recently about the accounting talent shortage and potential solutions needed to address the CPA pipeline. Some have called for a reduction in the 150 credit-hour education requirement, contending that what is essentially an extra year of study beyond the course load of a typical bachelor’s degree is too much of a barrier to young workers to enter the accounting profession. Minnesota has introduced legislation to create an alternative pathway to licensure that only requires 120 hours of education, plus two years of experience.

The problem? If this bill is enacted, many Minnesota CPAs will no longer be equivalent to CPAs licensed in other states. This has implications for their ability to practice outside Minnesota’s borders. Each state and territorial board of accountancy within the U.S. would have to decide if Minnesota CPAs are permitted to work in their jurisdiction and under what terms.

For Minnesota CPAs, this could also result in additional administrative burdens and fees, the need for additional licensing, and potential disruption in work for out-of-state clients, both virtual and physical. With their limited resources, smaller accounting firms could be particularly at a disadvantage in navigating new compliance restrictions. And if other states follow Minnesota’s example, the impact on CPA mobility could be a bit like the endgame for a Jenga tower — remove enough supporting pieces and the structure collapses.

The American Institute of CPAs is deeply committed to addressing the profession’s pipeline issues and supports efforts to modernize the CPA license, provided those changes protect the public interest. We have convened an independent National Pipeline Advisory Group that is looking into potential ways to address the talent shortage, including licensure changes. The group is scheduled to release a draft national strategy for addressing the pipeline problem next month, with a full report due this summer.

NPAG has consistently said that nothing is off the table in its discussions, including potential changes to the education requirement. For the AICPA’s part, we believe CPA mobility is at the heart of the accounting profession’s ability to compete, protect the public and provide quality service to our employers and clients. Any changes that could impact mobility must be shaped by broad consensus within the profession, not unilateral action, and informed by a thorough understanding of the costs and benefits of that approach.