audit methodology

“Auditor Reporting” – PR Prompts!, part 5

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

A complete overhaul of the auditor’s report for audits of 12/31/20 financial statements is going to be a very big deal. Please tune in to the new standards!

In November 2019, the AICPA published the first of a new semi-annual newsletter, PR Prompts!, designed to help CPAs keep current on peer review news.

The AICPA gave me permission to reprint portions of the newsletter on my blog.

This is the fifth of six posts to help you stay up to date.

I have looked at this page on the AICPA website. It is quite helpful. If you provide audits to your clients, it would be worth your time to find, browse, and bookmark this page.

The following comment is quoted verbatim. For ease of reading it will not be set inside quotation marks:

 

Auditor Reporting

The form and content of the auditor’s reports will change substantively which will be effective for audits of financial statements for periods ending on or after December 15, 2020. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 134, Auditor Reporting and Amendments, Including Amendments Addressing Disclosures in the Audit of Financial Statements, was issued in May 2019. SAS No. 134 includes a new AU-C section 701, Communicating Key Audit Matters in the Independent Auditor’s Report, and replaces the following AU-C sections in AICPA Professional Standards:

“Auditing Standards Issued in 2019: Information and Resources” – PR Prompts!, part 4

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

In November 2019, the AICPA published the first of a new semi-annual newsletter, PR Prompts!, designed to help CPAs keep current on peer review news.

The AICPA gave me permission to reprint portions of the newsletter on my blog.

This is the fourth of six posts to help you stay up to date.

 

I have looked at the following page on the AICPA website. It is quite helpful. If you provide audits to your clients, it would be worth your time to find, browse, and bookmark this page.

The following comment is quoted verbatim. For ease of reading it will not be set inside quotation marks:

 

Auditing Standards Issued in 2019: Information and Resources

This is an exciting time in the auditing space. Standards are changing to keep up with today’s business environment. To set you up for success, we’ve gathered resources on auditing standards that include on changes to the auditing reporting standard, the employee benefit plan auditing standard and the other information standard. These include backgrounders, FAQs and news articles.

 

As mentioned at the top of this post, this article is reprinted with permission of the AICPA.

 

“Single Audits – 2019 Compliance Supplement” – PR Prompts!, part 3

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

In November 2019, the AICPA published the first of a new semi-annual newsletter, PR Prompts!, designed to help CPAs keep current on peer review news.

The AICPA gave me permission to reprint portions of the newsletter on my blog.

This is the third of six posts to help you stay up to date.

The following comment is quoted verbatim. For ease of reading it will not be set inside quotation marks:

 

Single Audits – 2019 Compliance Supplement

The 2019 Compliance Supplement (Supplement) used for conducting single audits includes extensive changes from prior years. The most significant change relates to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirement for federal agencies to limit the number of requirements identified as being subject to the compliance audit; it was decreased from a maximum of 12 to 6. …

New SAS and SSAE modify definition of materiality

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

The Auditing Standards Board has issued SAS 138 and SSAE 20 which change the definition of materiality. Under current audit standards, the materiality definition matches what is currently in use by IASB and IAASB. The revision will get the definition to match what is currently used by the American legal system, PCAOB, SEC, and FASB.

The new definition:

Average cost of health insurance plan. Reference point for your next analytical review of health insurance costs.

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

Here are some tidbits for your next analytical review of health insurance costs during an audit or review.

From annual survey by Kaiser Family Foundation of employer provided health insurance:

  • $20,576 – average annual cost of family plan in 2019
  • $19,616 – average annual cost of family plan in 2018
  • 71% – average portion of costs paid by employer

Peer review tips – tidbits from the 2019 Peer Review Conference

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

If you get a peer review of your attestation practice, I heard a few ideas in the AICPA’s Peer Review Conference you might want to know about.  I attended this year’s conference via webcast. First time I’ve gone through a 16 hour class online. The technology worked acceptably well. Saving the travel time was wonderful.

Annual update to Peer Review Information form

Starting next year, May 2020 specifically, every firm enrolled in the peer review program will need to update the Peer Review Information (PRI) form annually. Each firm will have to log into PRIMA and update the list of the type of engagements performed.

Not sure the reasons this change is going into effect. One component is so AICPA can monitor for changes the nature of a firm’s client base to see if a higher level of service is needed.

Focus areas in system reviews

The AICPA surveyed CPAs who provide a large number of reviews asking them what portion of their peer review clients had significant struggles with complying with the risk assessment standards. …

New audit standards for ERISA audits and other information in annual reports (SAS 136, 137)

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

Two more audit standards have been issued by the Auditing Standards Board addressing ERISA audits and other information in an annual report:

  • SAS 136Forming an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements of Employee Benefit Plans Subject to ERISA
  • SAS 137The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Other Information Included in Annual Reports.

Comments from recent continuing education classes worth repeating: not-for-profit entities.

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

Here are some fun or interesting or useful tidbits from the October 2018 A&A and the June 2019 Not-for-profit conferences presented by California Society of CPAs that apply to not-for-profit organizations.

Previous posts had comments on

Non-attest services and Yellow Book independence. Everyone probably knows that charities with more than $2 million of revenue who are registered with the California Attorney General must have an audit. Excluded from the requirement would be religious organizations, who are exempt from registering with the AG.

That requirement was created by the Nonprofit Integrity Act of 2004, so it’s old news.

The best payoff from attending CPE conferences is to compare every piece of information you hear to what you think you know. So, here is one of the big rewards for me attending this class…

Comments from recent continuing education classes worth repeating: peer review

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

Here are some fun or interesting or useful tidbits from the October 2018 A&A and the June 2019 Not-for-profit conferences presented by California Society of CPAs.

Previous post had comments on accounting and auditing.

Peer review

One speaker said there are several common issues for weaknesses in risk assessment:

  • Limited assessment
  • No linkage (relating the assessment of risks to further audit procedures)
  • Poor use of third-party practice tools
  • No assessment of IT risks

Not doing any risk assessment is now a major problem for you in a peer review if you missed the boat on the risk suite of standards.

For Yellow Book audit, the workpapers must document SKE (skills, knowledge, experience) of staff overseeing non-attest services.  Although the professional standards do not exactly require documentation of SKE for non-attest service on a non-yellow book audit, the speaker said (if I heard correctly) that the California Peer Review Committee has a considered opinion that such documentation is required.

So, if you have non-attest services on a non-yellow book audit, …

Comments from recent continuing education classes worth repeating: accounting and auditing

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

To get ready for a writing project this summer, I’ve been going over my notes from some CPE conferences and classes.

Thought I’d share some of the fun or interesting or useful tidbits from the October 2018 A&A and the June 2019 Not-for-profit conferences presented by California Society of CPAs.

Auditing

The auditor’s report will be completely reworked with implementation first required for 12/31/20 reports. The statement has been issued. Check out SAS-134, Auditor Reporting and Amendments, Including Amendments Addressing Disclosures in the Audit of Financial Statements if  you want to get a head start on the overhaul to audit rules.

By the way, an omnibus standard, SAS 135, makes lots of little changes you need to know about.

An exposure draft is out which addresses audit evidence. Final document expected in late 2019.

Accounting

KPMG agrees to $50 million fine from SEC. The details are really bad.

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

Oh, remember that post about the SEC considering a $50M fine against KPMG?  Initial report suggested it was for gaining access to the list of engagements which were going to be inspected by PCAOB.

It is much worse.

The firm is fined for altering workpapers based on the inspection list. In addition, there was a lot of cheating on the tests for CPE courses, including a class required by the SEC.

The SEC says KPMG has agreed to settle and pay $50M.

If you want to read the gory details for yourself, you can do so:

This is for real. Seriously.

By the time you finish reading this post or other reports on the SEC’s action, you may be wondering whether there needs to be an assertion the source of information for this post was neither The Onion nor Babylon Bee.

Reports of setting your own passing score for an ethics test could make you wonder if it is very early April. “Cooperate and graduate” exchanges of test answers with the engagement partner and your audit team makes one wonder whether we have entered some sort of alternate reality.

You may want to glance at the linked documents and verify for yourself they are for real.

I assure you the above documents are from the SEC.gov website.

SEC action

In part II of the administrative action/cease & desist order, KPMG admits the facts described in part III.

Here are some highlights of part III.

First cause of action

The first cause of action by the SEC is the firm obtained the list of engagements which were going to be inspected by PCAOB and then altered workpapers which had not yet hit the lock-down date.

Exposure drafts propose change to definition of materiality for audit and attestation standards.

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

The Auditing Standards Board has issued exposure drafts to subtly change the definition of materiality in the SAS and SSAE literature. Both exposure drafts are titled Amendments to the description of the concept of materility and can be found here.

A Journal of Accountancy article describes the proposed changes:  ASB seeks alignment of materiality definition.

The exposure draft gives a four page history of how the definition of materiality has evolved over the last several decades.

What the proposed changes would do is shift the definition of materiality in the audit and attestsation literate to match what is used by the US courts, PCAOB, SEC, and FASB. Currently the definition is aligned with IASB and IAASB.

I will quote portions of one paragraph in the exposure draft and make some comments.

CPA sanctioned by California Attorney General over audit of charity

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

The California AG negotiated a settlement with a charity for their alleged overvaluation of medical GIK. I say alleged because the charity, three present or former board members, the charity’s insurance company, and the external auditor all deny in the settlement they did anything wrong.

The alleged scheme, according to the AG, was the charity used two other charities, which it formed, to buy medicine in the Netherlands and then donate it back to the ‘parent’, which then recognized GIK at US prices.

The AG asserts that over the course of 25 or more transactions, the purchase of about $225,000 of medicine by the two controlled charities generated gift-in-kind revenue of about $34,900,000 in the sanctioned charity.

Of note for readers of this blog is that the CPA providing an external audit was sanctioned as part of the negotiated settlement. She audited the charity and signed its 990s. She also audited one of the controlled charities and signed their 990s.

News flash for CPAs: auditor reports will be changing again for 12/31/20 audits (SAS 134, 135)

Reaction of many CPAs to the accelerating rate of change facing the profession. Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

On May 8, 2019, the Auditing Standards Board of the AICPA issued two new SASs:

The AICPA press release is here.

SAS 135 is only 36 pages long, but SAS 134 at 261 pages in length is a bruiser.

Essentially, 134 will replace the audit literature that discusses the auditor’s report (AU-C 700), modification of the audit report (AU-C 705), and emphasis-of-matter sections (AU-C 706). Wording and format of audit reports and entire range of modifications will all be changing.

Effective date is years ending on or after December 15, 2020. That means these will first apply for 12/31/20 audits performed in late winter/spring of 2021.

Seems like a long time in the future, but might be worth setting some time aside to start sorting through the changes.

2018 nonprofit risk alert is available. New edition adds discussion on valuation of GIK as rebuttal to California AG.

Cover of 2018 NFP risk alert, used under fair use since I’m recommending you buy the document.

The AICPA has released the 2018 edition of Not-for-Profit Entities Industry Developments.

If you are a CPA serving the not-for-profit community, you need to read this document each year. It provides a survey of the accounting and auditing issues affecting the nonprofit world.

If you are an auditor, there are several other risk alerts you ought to be reading every year.

(Cross-posted from my other blog, Nonprofit Update, since this information is useful for many CPAs.)

If you are working for a nonprofit, these alerts would give you a good survey of accounting issues in general and the audit issues your CPA will be dealing with this year.

Valuation of Gifts in Kind

Of particular interest are new comments responsive to the challenge from the California AG over valuation of GIK. The 2017 and 2016 editions had minimal comments on GIK.

The 2018 edition has a new section, Gifts-in-Kind: Reporting Contributions of Nonfinancial Assets, in paragraphs .53 through .57, which describes the AICPA’s interpretation of GAAP.

Years after the mebendazole issue has faded away, the second bullet point of paragraph .56 says that when GIK is sourced outside the U.S. and is not approved for distribution in the U.S., the meds should be valued at international prices. (If you have been following this issue for years, you realize the concession made by that comment.)