It’s conceivable, but seems unlikely (I agree with **Chronos** here). It becomes even less likely as soon as you add a bit of concreteness and wiggle room for implicit conditions.

For example, “chocolate sauce and whipped cream are necessary and sufficient toppings for an ice cream sundae”. It’s possible that I meant:

(chocolate sauce is a necessary and sufficient topping for an ice cream sundae) AND

(whipped cream is a necessary and sufficient topping for an ice cream sundae)

Or expanded out even more:

(chocolate sauce is a necessary topping for an ice cream sundae) AND

(chocolate sauce is a sufficient topping for an ice cream sundae) AND

(whipped cream is a necessary topping for an ice cream sundae) AND

(whipped cream is a sufficient topping for an ice cream sundae)

But that’s just obviously false, because some conditions are mutually exclusive. The much more reasonable interpretation is:

(chocolate sauce AND whipped cream) are necessary and sufficient toppings for an ice cream sundae

That is at least conceivably true. Note that the full conditions for C are inferred and not specified exactly, so we never make a direct logical equivalence between A<=>C or B<=>C. And it’s obvious that A and B are not logically equivalent.