Posts Tagged ‘compilation’
The 2017 audit season is about to begin. Planning is well underway for all those 12/31 clients.
To help you get ready, the annual updates to AICPA risk alerts are available. Consider:
- General Accounting and Auditing Developments – 2016/17 Audit Risk Alert
- Developments in Preparation, Compilation, and Review Engagements 2016/17
- Government Auditing Standards and Single Audit Developments – Audit Risk Alert (16/17 edition)
I read the risk alerts every year. They are great for reminding me of what I already knew and even better for pointing out what tidbits I had missed.
You might want to check them out in the lull before the rush of field work hits.
There are two new SSARS pronouncements. Most likely they will not be a big deal for most accountants, but if you work in the comp or review arena, you need to know they exist and you really ought to have a vague idea what is in them.
First, a tip on staying out of trouble on nonattest services…
11/1 – Journal of Accountancy – Nonattest services quiz – A great six question quiz on nonatttest services. Take the quiz to find out how well you are doing on independence and documentation requirements. By the way, if you miss some questions you probably taking out some really serious risk in your audit practice that you didn’t even know about.
This is a great opportunity to find out what you don’t know, which can hurt you.
9/23 – Journal of Accountancy – ARSC complete clarity project with issuance of SSARS No. 22 – Read the rest of this entry »
The following article provides a superb update on recent developments in the peer review program. The article is graciously provided by the California Society of CPAs and the information described here applies in all jurisdictions across the U.S.
Because the entire article is quoted verbatim without any additional comments from me, none of the article will be placed in quotation marks.
Originally published by CalCPA (www.calcpa.org) in the October issue of California CPA magazine.
Used with written permission of the California Society of CPAs.
Be Prepared – A Comprehensive Peer Review Update
By Linda McCrone
Peer review is a successful program that helps firms improve their quality control systems and elevate the quality of accounting and auditing engagements. The AICPA contributed the software program that tracks peer reviews and the staff that manages the program. AICPA member volunteers contribute their time to oversee the program, keep the peer review program forms current and make certain that the peer review standards remain relevant. But like any successful program, peer review must continue to evolve to keep up with events.
SSARS #22 addresses Compilation of Pro Forma Financial Information. This document rolls SSARS #14 into the clarified format. This is the last section of the old SSARS to be rewritten as a clarified document.
You can find the document here.
It will be effective for compilations of pro forma info dated on or after May 1, 2017.
Charles Hall has a superb recap of the document at his blog, CPA-Scribo: Are You Up to Speed on the New Pro Forma Information Standards? If you want to get up to speed really fast, check out his article.
Previously mentioned that I looked disciplinary actions reported in the last four newsletters from the California Board of Accountancy (CBA). Want to better understand what happened with firms that got in trouble for audit quality or for not getting a peer review when one was required.
Will continue that discussion by looking at sanctions imposed on smaller firms and then self-imposed trouble generated by some larger firms.
Three times a year the California Board of Accountancy issues a newsletter. It contains a variety of information useful for CPAs. If you are a CPA, you really ought to be reading the newsletter.
That newsletter is also where the board publicizes disciplinary actions against CPAs.
In the last few newsletters I’ve noticed a number of cases where firms are sanctioned for substandard audits. Have also noticed a number of firms sanctioned for not getting a peer review when it was required or fibbing to the board whether they had complied with the peer review standards.
I wanted to understand better what I’ve noticed in passing so decided to dive into the disciplinary reports to get a better picture of the extent of sanctions for audit quality and peer review issues. I looked at the Fall 2014, Winter 2015, Summer 2015, and Fall 2015 newsletters.
That covers 16 months of reporting for disciplinary actions by CBA.
I focused on sanctions for audit issues excluding anything that was a follow-up to PCOAB or SEC sanctions. That rules out quite a few cases.
Also ignored a long list of social misbehavior such as DUIs (several incidents), fabricating Form E (once – fabricating the experience report? – really??), embezzlements, disbarment (once), and other such human foibles. Also excluded a variety of contingency fee violations, breaches of client trust, and sundry tax fiascos.
For context, the Fall 2015 newsletter had 28 disciplinary actions of which 5 were of interest for this little bitty research project. Of those 5 cases, the public notices refer to 2 firms which had substandard audits, 1 had a substandard compilation, and 4 included failures to get a peer review when required of which 2 fibbed to CBA about compliance with the peer review requirement.
Scope and result of my analysis