Post on 18-Dec-2015
Peer Review Updateand
Regulatory Updates
Peer Review Program
Presenter
Janice L. Gray, CPA, CVA, CFF
Oklahoma Accountancy BoardBoard Vice Chair
Peer Review Program
Disclaimer
Any views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter and do not necessarily represent the views of the Oklahoma Accountancy Board.
Peer Review Program 4
PEER REVIEW UPDATE
Peer Review Program
Common Non-Compliance with Professional Standards
5
Peer Review Program 6
Peer Review Data Gathering Project
Peer Review Staff have compiled and analyzed 443 MFCs related to engagements with years ending during 2010 and 2011
Common areas of non-compliance include the following:• ASC 740-10-50-15
- Example: Disclosures required by professional standards for information related to uncertain tax positions such as accounting policy and the tax years subject to examination were not included in the footnotes
• AU 530 - Example: Audit report is dated prior to completion of all
required procedures
Peer Review Program 7
Peer Review Data Gathering Project
Common areas of non-compliance include the following:• AU 339
- Example: Procedures were noted as “done” in the audit program with no documentation supporting the specific procedures performed
• AU 380- Example: No documentation of the communication with
those charged with governance
• AU 312 and 314- Example: No documentation of the auditors
understanding of information technology and the associated risks
Peer Review Program 8
Other Common Areas of Non-Compliance
Issues with ET 101-3 Performance of Nonattest Services • Lack of documentation of understanding with the client
regarding nonattest services
Issues with report language• No indication that financial statements omitted
substantially all disclosures• Report does not cover all periods presented in the
accompanying financial statements• Report does not explain the degree of responsibility firm is
taking with respect to supplementary information• Report did not state that it was a comprehensive basis
other than GAAP
Peer Review Program 9
Other Common Areas of Non-Compliance
Issues with SAS 99 Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit including:
• Discussion among engagement personnel• Inquiries of management• Specific risks identified• Consideration of nonstandard journal entries
Various Omitted Disclosures including: • Concentration of credit risk• Notes payable does not disclose rates and maturity dates• Policy for accounting for notes receivables and capital
leases
Peer Review Program 10
Other Common Areas of Non-Compliance
Management Representation Letter issues including:
• Representations regarding fraud • Letter did not cover prior period on comparative
statements• Letter was not appropriately modified when no
attorney was consulted
Peer Review Program 11
Pre-engagement and Planning Activities
Most common audit planning deficiencies include a failure to:
• Use the firm’s designated accounting and auditing materials developed by a third party
• Use a written audit program• Include references to client responsibilities regarding
fraud in engagement letter• Assess and document levels of materiality and
tolerable misstatement used and the basis for those levels
• Documentation of communication between predecessor and successor auditors
Peer Review Program 12
Risk Assessment and Developingthe Detailed Audit Plan
Most common performance deficiencies include a failure to:
• Document the use of analytical procedures to determine the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures
• Consult industry audit and accounting guides• Perform or document the engagement team
discussion regarding the susceptibility of the entity’s financial statements to misstatement due to error or fraud
• Document consideration of internal control• Assess or document the risk of fraud
Peer Review Program 13
Risk Assessment and Developingthe Detailed Audit Plan - Continued
Most common performance deficiencies include a failure to:
• Document the assessment of risks, significant risks identified and the related controls and the overall responses to address the assessed risks of misstatement
• Tailor audit programs for specialized industries or for a specific type of engagement – such as significant areas of inventory and receivable balances
Peer Review Program 14
Performing Further Audit Procedures
Most common related to performing further audit procedures include a failure to:
• Observe inventory when amount is material• Confirm significant receivables or document
appropriateness and utilization of other audit techniques
• Test for unrecorded liabilities• Review loan covenants relating to current and long-
term liabilities• Perform cut-off procedures• Perform ade3quate tests and sufficient
documentation in key audit areas.• Adequately document the performance of substantive
analytical procedures and related expectations
Peer Review Program 15
General and Completion Procedures
Engagement performance deficiencies regarding general and completion include a failure to:
• Document the review of board of director minutes• Document consideration of nonstandard journal
entries• Perform a review of subsequent events• Request a legal representation letter or include in
management rep letter• Obtain a client management representation letter
and/or include key components in the letter• Ensure that the dating of the rep letter and the date of
the auditor’s report is the same
Peer Review Program 16
General and Completion Procedures – Contd.
Engagement performance deficiencies regarding general and completion include a failure to:
• Document nontrivial uncorrected misstatements and a conclusion about whether the uncorrected statements individually or in the aggregate cause the statements to be misstated and the basis for that conclusion.
• Document significant deficiencies in internal control• Ensure that all steps in audit programs are signed off• Perform and document and adequate review of the
engagement workpapers and/or the auditor's report and accompanying financial statements by the engagement partner prior to the issuance of the auditor’s report.
Peer Review Program 17
Peer Review Exposure Draft
Exposure draft issued June 1, 2012 – Comments due August 31, 2012
• Would require that all examinations performed under the Statements on Attestation Engagements (SSAEs) be required to have a system review.
• Would add SOC 1 and 2 engagements to the list of engagements that must be selected during a system review.
Peer Review Program 18
AICPA Peer Review Web Resources
Peer Review Standards
Peer Review Standards Interpretations
Report Acceptance Body Handbook
Peer Review Alerts
System and Engagement Review checklists
Peer Review Program 19
ENGAGEMENT QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW
Peer Review Program 20
Engagement Quality Control Review
Establish firm criteria for determining whether an engagement quality control review should be performed,
Evaluate all engagements against the criteria
Perform an engagement quality control review for all engagements that meet the firm’s criteria, and complete the review before the report is released.
Establish procedures addressing the nature, timing, extent and documentation of the engagement quality control review.
Peer Review Program 21
EQCR - Procedures
Perform - objective evaluation of the significant judgments made by the engagement team, and the conclusions reached in formulating the report.
Read financial statements and report, considering whether report is appropriate Review selected engagement documentation, evaluating significant judgments and conclusions of engagement teamDiscuss significant findings and issues with engagement partner
Note - extent of EQCR procedures depends on the complexity of engagement and risk that report might not be appropriate in the circumstances.
Peer Review Program 22
Peer Review Statistics
System Reviews (2007-2009)• 91% Pass• 7% Pass with deficiencies• 2% Fail
Engagement Reviews (2007-2009)• 91% Pass• 8% Pass with deficiencies• 1% Fail
Peer Review Program 23
Reasons for Report Modifications
Reasons for Report Modifications (2009)• Leadership (“tone at the top”) – 3%• Ethical Requirements – 2%• Client Acceptance/Continuance – 3%• Human Resources – 13%• Engagement Performance – 55%• Monitoring – 23%
Peer Review Program 24
Recent Changes inPublic Interest
Peer Review Program 25
Single Audit Quality Concerns (PCIE Report)
Scope:June 2007 PCIE Report covered 208 out of 38,000 single audits performed in 2002/2003
Report Results/Concerns:• Acceptable 49% • Unacceptable/Limited reliability 51%
Findings:PCIE Reports Areas of Improvements Needed• Internal control, compliance, documentation,
sampling, due professional care
Peer Review Program 26
Single Audit Quality Concerns (PCIE Report)
Frequent Single Audit Violations Major program determination (missed major program—look back rule)
Percent of coverage
Incorrect threshold for major program determination
Improper identification of clusters (missing programs)
Failure to test all major programs within clusters
Not including all grants within a CFDA #
Internal control documentation and compliance testing
Peer Review Program 27
Practice Monitoring Task Force (PMTF)
Initial Areas of Focus:• Establish consistent measures of A-133 deficiencies• Develop guidance and training materials for peer
reviewers
Task Force’s Initial Activities:• Meeting with OIGs to discuss Peer Review process
and comparing to QCR process• Brainstorming session to consider comments and
recommendations received from IGs
Peer Review Program 28
PMTF Actions Taken
Interpretation 63-1a revised to ensure selection of an A‑133 engagement
Revised engagement profile to require firm to provide additional information
Bifurcated engagement checklists to focus reviewer’s attention on frequent violations
Enhanced peer review acceptance process
Peer Review Program 29
Enhanced A-133 Acceptance Process Findings (So Far)
Missed major programs• Failed to combine federal expenditures for the same
CFDA number• Failed to combine federal programs that are required
to be clustered• Failed to identify as a major program that was not
audited in one of the last two years
Failing to audit a program that should have been clustered with a program that was audited as major
Improperly identifying auditee as low risk
Peer Review Program 30
Employee Benefit Plans
DOL continues to see problems in Employee Benefit Plan audits
AICPA collaborating with regulators to improve peer review
Expanded peer review checklist
Separately identify 403(b) engagements
Creating 403(b) webinar
Peer Review Program 31
Broker-dealers
PCAOB may now inspect broker-dealers
Carrying broker-dealers are now a “must select”
Checklist for broker-dealer audit engagements developed by AICPA Peer Review Team
Peer Review Program
Peer Review at the OAB
• Peer Review
• Peer Review Oversight Committee (PROC)
• Compilations
Peer Review Program
The Law –15.1A. Definitions5. “Attest” means providing the following financial statement services:a. any audit or other engagement to be performed in
accordance with the Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS),b. any review of a financial statement to be performed in
accordance with the Statements on Standards for Account and Review Services (SSARS),c. any report performed in accordance with the Statements
on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE), and d. any engagement to be performed in accordance with the
Auditing Standards of the Public Company Oversight Board (PCAOB).
Peer Review Program
The Law – 10:15-30-A
OLD LAWAs a condition for issuance or renewal of permits, the Board may require applicants who perform review or audit services to undergo peer reviews conducted not less than once every three (3) years.
NEW LAW EFFECTIVE – August 26, 2011As a condition for issuance or renewal of permits, the Board may require applicants who perform attest services, except compilations and those services described in subparagraph d of paragraph 5 of Section 15.1A of this title to undergo peer reviews conducted not less than once every three (3) years.
Peer Review Program
PROC Operating Statement
“To evaluate and monitor the Peer Review Program established by the Oklahoma Accountancy Board to provide reasonable assurance that the American Institute of Certified Public Accountant’s Peer Review Program Standards are being properly administered in the State of Oklahoma making referrals to the Oklahoma Accountancy Board as needed for further action as needed.”
Peer Review Program
Purpose
To evaluate and monitor the peer review program established by the Board to provide reasonable assurance that the AICPA Peer Review Program standards are being properly administered in the state of Oklahoma making referrals to the Board for further action as needed. (10:15-33-7)
Peer Review Program
Objectives and ProceduresEnsure that peer reviews are conducted in accordance with AICPA Standards for Performing and Reporting on Peer Reviews. (10:15-33-7e3)
Peer Review Program
Objectives and ProceduresRegularly communicate results of PROC operations. (10:15-33-7a3)
• PROC will meet and report activities to the
Board at least quarterly • Annually report conclusions and
recommendations regarding evaluation and monitoring of peer review program to Board
• Communicate problems encountered to sponsoring organizations as needed
Peer Review Program
THE BOARD - Our Mission
The mission of the Board is to safeguard the public welfare by prescribing and assessing the qualifications of and regulating the professional conduct of individual registrants and registered firms authorized to engage in the practice of public accounting in the State of Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Accountancy Board• Vicky Petete, CPA, Chair Ada• Janice L. Gray, CPA, Vice Chair Norman• Jay Englebach, CPA, SecretaryOklahoma City• Mike Sanner, CPA, Jones• Barbara A. Ley, CPA Oklahoma City• Jody M. Manning Bristow• Karen Cunningham, Public Member Oklahoma City
Peer Review Program
National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA)
Oklahoma Representation
Janice L. Gray, CPAMember of the NASBA Board – SW Regional Director
Chair of the NASBA Compliance Assurance Committee
Member of the NASBA Relations with Member Board
Committee
Carlos Johnson, CPAMember of the NASBA Board, at large member
Chairman of the NASBA Uniform Accountancy Act Committee
Member of the NASBA State Board Relevance and Effectiveness Committee
NASBA Chair Elect Nominee
Vicky Petete, CPAMember of the NASBA Accounting & Finance Committee
Barbara Ley, CPAMember of the AICPA State Board Examination Liaison Committee
Peer Review Program
Birth Month Registration
15.14D of the Oklahoma Accountancy Act is as follows:
“…all valid Certificates or Licenses shall be renewed based on staggered expiration dates on the last day of the individuals’ birth months. Renewal will be effective for a twelve-month period.”
•Everyone must complete the Annual Registrant Reporting form
•You can renew your registration on the OAB website! Birth Month registration began in January, 2012.
Peer Review Program
Firm Registration
New registration system is open and has been for a few weeks. You have until June 30 to register.
There have been issues with the process Board Staff is working hard to get this corrected.
If you have issues call the Board staff and they will help walk you through the process
Peer Review Program
Continuing Professional Education (CPE)
Requirements•120 CPE hours within a rolling three calendar year
period, with a minimum of 20 hours in a calendar year
•4 hours of Ethics every 3 years•4 hours of CPE in Compilation if prepare
Compilations with or without disclosure and do not have a Peer Review• Report prior year CPE on an annual basis when birth-month certificate renewal takes place
Peer Review Program
Continuing Professional Education (CPE)Every certificate holder, regardless of permit status, must report CPE to maintain their certificateExemptions to CPE
•Disability•Military Service•Retired•Inactive
Peer Review Program
Example Of Rolling Three Years
2008 45 Hours 2009 35 Hours 2010 60 HoursTotal Hours 140 Hours 2009 35 Hours 2010 60 Hours 2011 25 HoursTotal Hours 120 Required Hours
Peer Review Program
Example Of Rolling Three Years
2010 60 Hours 2011 25 Hours 2012 60 HoursTotal Hours 145 Required Hours 2011 25 Hours 2012 60 Hours 2013 35 HoursTotal Hours 120 Required Hours
Peer Review Program
PLAY IT SAFE
IF YOU CAN’T KEEP UP WITH THE ROLLING THREE YEARS – JUST TAKE 40 HOURS PER YEAR LIKE THE OLD RULE
Peer Review Program
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Peer Review Program
Don’t Get Caught!Things that can get you into trouble
• New CPAs holding out
• Not registering firms
• Practicing with an unregistered firm (PLLC)
•Failure to register a firm can incur $1000 fine
from the Board
• Not notifying the Board of change of address, job etc.
WITHIN 30 DAYS
• Not notifying the Board of legal issues, i.e.. DUI or other
charges that would fall under the Moral question. WITHIN
30 DAYS
Peer Review Program
Don’t Get Caught!Things that can get you into trouble
What happens if your certificate lapses?
Before reinstatement:
• Certificate revoked after 30 days
• You must take AICPA Ethics Exam and score 90%
• If revoked longer than 5 years you must retake the CPA exam
Peer Review Program
Don’t Get Caught!Things that can get you into trouble
• Doing “one offs”Examples:
• Audits – PTA, Homeowner’s Association, Other non-profits
• Compilations (without getting new CPE requirements)
• Functions in which you do not have technical expertise
• If you receive a letter of inquiry from the Board, it is a violation (and $1,000 fine) for failing to respond
• Not completing or reporting CPE – HORROR STORY!
Peer Review Program
Noncompliance with auditing standards and failure to complete the appropriate peer review.
Case No. 1863
Peer Review Program
Case No. 1884
Noncompliance with professional standards in the performance of three years of city audits.
Peer Review Program
Case No. 1888
Noncompliance with professional standards in failing to obtain information critical to engagement acceptance as a successor firm.
Peer Review Program
Case No. 1905
Noncompliance with auditing standards in the performance of a school district audit.
Peer Review Program
Case No. 1913
Noncompliance with reporting standards in the performance of a city audit.
Peer Review Program
Case No. 1887
Failure to enroll in a peer review program within one year of the initial engagement.
Peer Review Program
Case No. 1904
Failure to enroll in a peer review program within one year of the initial engagement.
Peer Review Program
You Didn’t Follow the Rules?Enforcement
If you fail to comply with any of the rules outlined in the Oklahoma Accountancy Act the Board can do one or all of the following:
Asses fines
• Issue costs• Issue remedial action• More CPE• Undergo pre-issuance review• Limit practice• REVOKE YOUR LICENSE
Peer Review Program
Change in Title 74 added language: (black is old language, red is added language) Except as otherwise provided by law, all government entities, as defined by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, shall have an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards. Copies of any audit, performance audit, agreed-upon-procedures report, or other attestation engagement report produced by a person other than the State Auditor shall be filed with the State Auditor and Inspector by that person.
Pending Issues
Peer Review Program
How does this impact the Government Auditors list?
Current opinion of the State Auditors Office is any registrant performing attestation work using Yellow Book standards, must report to the State Auditors office and register with the OAB.
The Board voted at the June meeting to require registration by all firm’s who file reports with the State Auditor’s office. A grace period will be allowed until December 31, 2012. After that date failure to register could incur enforcement action.
Pending Issues
Peer Review Program
Revoked CPA continues performing auditsClients fail to verify status with OAB
Impact on clients-Federal grants previously approved were revoked prior to funds being distributed
Impact on clients-return of money granted and spent has been demanded due to audit performed by non-cpa
Non-Compliance Issues
Peer Review Program
Pending Enforcement Files as of 5/31/2012
Substandard Work17
Peer Review Noncompliance 3
CPE Noncompliance 4
Other 26
Total Pending 50
Peer Review Program
Disposition of Files 7/01/2011-5/31/2012
Files Closed/Cases Dismissed 38
Files Closed with Private Reprimand 17
Files Merged with other Files 4
Administrative Consent Orders 29
Consent Orders 6
Hearings Held 7
Total Dispositions 101
Peer Review Program
Now Available Online
Final Orders* are now posted to OAB website.
Locating a Final Order:
• Select the Find a CPA/PA tab
• Conduct an individual or firm search to find a particular Enforcement Order
*Disciplinary actions that required a
Board order
Peer Review Program 67
Publish a Bi-annual newsletter that contains all enforcement actions for the
previous 6 months.Electronic for the first time in February. If you did not receive, please let Board
staff know.
Peer Review Program
QUESTIONS?
Peer Review Program
Oklahoma Accountancy Board201 N.W. 63rd Street, Suite 210
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116www.ok.gov/oab