Changes are coming for those who perform attestation engagements.
A standard proposed by the AICPA Auditing Standards Board would change the terminology for what has been known as a “review engagement” in addition to making other significant changes.
You can click here to read a .PDF of the exposure draft (“Proposed Statement On Standards For Attestation Engagements: Revisions to Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 18, Attestation Standards: Clarification and Recodification”)
Please email your response to firstname.lastname@example.org by Oct. 11.
The most significant aspects of this proposed Standards for Attestation Engagements are:
- It would no longer require the practitioner to request a written assertion from the responsible party when the practitioner is reporting directly on the subject matter.
- It would more closely harmonize AT-C section 210 with the limited assurance provisions of International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000 (Revised), Assurance Engagements Other Than Audits and Reviews of Historical Financial Information, including changing the term review engagement to limited assurance engagement. The proposed revisions to AT-C section 210 more explicitly describe the types of procedures a practitioner may perform in a limited assurance engagement. These procedures are much the same as the procedures a practitioner may perform in an examination engagement, except that the nature, timing, and extent of those procedures are tailored to a limited assurance engagement. Finally, the proposed revisions to AT-C section 210 would require that the practitioner’s report include an informative summary of the work performed as a basis for the practitioner’s conclusion.
- It would revise AT-C section 215 by
— no longer requiring that all of the parties to the engagement (the engaging party, the responsible party (where applicable), and users of the practitioner’s report) agree to the procedures to be performed and take responsibility for their sufficiency. Instead, the proposed revision would require that the engaging party acknowledge the appropriateness of the procedures and would explicitly allow the practitioner to develop, or assist in developing, the procedures, and
— allowing the practitioner to issue a general use report, unless the procedures are prescribed and the practitioner is precluded from designing or performing additional procedures, the criteria are not available to users, or the criteria are suitable only for a limited number of users.