1 / 27

Non-assurance Services

Non-assurance Services. IESBA Meeting New York September 17-20 , 2018. Richard Fleck , IESBA Deputy and Working Group Chair. Objective. R eceive a report-back on roundtables in relation to NAS Discuss WG’s assessments and proposals Update on preliminary benchmarking observations

tgary
Télécharger la présentation

Non-assurance Services

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Non-assurance Services IESBA Meeting New York September 17-20, 2018 Richard Fleck, IESBA Deputy and Working Group Chair

  2. Objective • Receive a report-back on roundtables in relation to NAS • Discuss WG’s assessments and proposals • Update on preliminary benchmarking observations • Approve possible project proposal, including timeline

  3. Activities Since June 2018 Meeting • Two roundtables • Tokyo (July 12) and Melbourne (July 16) • WG meeting in New York • Prepare and finalize a project proposal • Comment letter from SMPC • IESBA CAG meeting

  4. General Reactions from SMPC • SMPC generally supportive of project proposal • Supportive of a principle-based approach for global Code • Believe that regulators and NSSs should be allowed the flexibility to tailor NAS provisions based on national circumstances • Do not support deletion of the exemptions → unintended consequences to SMPs (i.e., exclusion from tendering) • Concerned that extending NAS provisions to audits of SMEs would cause unnecessary costs and complications

  5. General Reactions from CAG (1) • Strong support to initiate an NAS project proposal, including decisions to: • Retain principles-based approach • Emphasize role of, and auditor communications with TCWG • Suggestions to emphasize linkages to: • Fees • Business Model

  6. General Reactions from CAG (2) • Cautions about understandability of “trivial and inconsequential” • Consider also prohibiting NAS that create advocacy and self-interest threats • Agreement that clarification is needed about which NAS are prohibited, but also important to be clear about which types of NAS are permissible NAS • Regulatory perspective to help with enforceability • Consider situations in which management might not be competent to assume responsibility

  7. Topics Discussed at Roundtables • General Policy Objective • Materiality • PIE and non-PIE provisions • Unconditional NAS prohibitions(i.e., “black list”) • New and emerging services • Auditor communication with TCWG • Disclosure and other matters

  8. Feedback from RT Participants General Policy Objective • Ideal to achieve global harmonization of NAS provisions, but is that aim practical? • Common high-quality NAS provisions at global level is helpful • Calls for clearer and more explicit prohibitions • Divergent views about how to achieve right balance • Concept of “black list” has challenges • Important to continue to link NAS prohibitions to CF because it explains rationale for why the prohibitions exist

  9. Feedback from RT Participants Materiality (1) • Views expressed included: • General recognition that term is unclear • Concern that it is subject to misuse or abuse • If concept is retained, consider whether different terminology might be more appropriate • Consider whether to use other terms like “acceptable” and “trivial and inconsequential”

  10. Feedback from RT Participants Materiality (2) • If term is withdrawn, consider whether there should be more guidance in the Code on how breaches, particularly immaterial breaches, should be handled • Calls for more guidance • Too early to tell if para. 600.5 A1 of Code is helpful • Suggestions for a more explicit link to concept of RITP

  11. Feedback from RT Participants PIE and non-PIE Provisions • Doubt about whether PIE and non-PIE continues to be appropriate approach for Code • Important to consider needs of SMEs and SMPs • Increasing trends for alternate funding sources • Different descriptions/definitions of PIE contribute to complexity • Typically PIEs = listed; decrease in number of listed entities in many jurisdictions • Concern that SMPs may not have resources to implement PIE provisions and may opt out of providing audits

  12. Feedback from RT Participants Communication with TCWG, Disclosure/ Other • Strong support for increased transparency about NAS and NAS fees • Support for requiring auditors to obtain NAS preapproval from TCWG • Auditor will still need to assert for own view on compliance with independence • Little or no support for fee caps • Not for IESBA to require disclosure of NAS information by companies to stakeholders

  13. Feedback from RT Participants New and Emerging Services • Fundamental principles and general provisions in CF continue to be relevant, but more guidance is needed • PAs need help to understand ethical implications of new services, including the types of threats they create • Response should be timely • Advancing technologies are blurring the lines b/w professional services and business relationships • Are there other types of NAS that should be dealt with in Code?

  14. Views about Feedback on Roundtables

  15. WG Assessments and Proposals Matters not be Pursued • “Blacklist” in the Code; • Disclosure of NAS Provided by audited entities • NAS Fee Cap • Firms’ Business Models Matters for Consideration • Self-review threat/ Materiality/ PIE vs non-PIE • New and Emerging Services • Communication with TCWG • NAS Disclosure Requirements

  16. WG Assessment and Proposals Self-review Treat, Materiality, PIE vs non-PIE • Is the current approach to self-review threats in the Code appropriate? • Should the Code prohibit all NAS that create self-review threats? • Should the concept of materialitybe retained? • Should the distinction between PIE and non-PIE provisions in the Code should be retained?

  17. WG Assessments and Proposals New and Emerging Services • Are there are other types of NAS, including new and emerging services that should be explicitly included in the Code? • Review general NAS provisions in the Code to ensure that they remain appropriate • Ensure a mechanism to provide timely guidance (e.g., staff publications, Q&A)

  18. WG Assessment and Proposals Achieving Transparency About NAS Confidentiality? What to disclose? NAS fees? Where to disclose it?

  19. WG Assessment and Proposals Communication with TCWG • Consider whether, and if so how to establish req’ts in the Code for auditor communications with TCWG about NAS • Duplicate in what’s already in IAASB’s ISA 260 (Revised) or add a reference? • Should such req’ts apply to listed entities or PIEs? • IAASB-IESBA applicability alignment needed • IESBA’s remit does not extend to TCWG

  20. Input from the Fees Working Group • Options relating to ratio of NAS fees to audit fees issues • Require firms to assess the cumulative effect of providing multiple NAS to audit clients • Consider the role of disclosure of fee-related information • Communication with TCWG about NAS/ pre-approval of NAS • Require firms to re-evaluate threats to independence when ratio of NAS/ audit fees reach a particular threshold • Establish caps on ratio of NAS/ audit fees (PIEs vs non-PIEs)?

  21. Preliminary Benchmarking • Code and the EU Regulation • Code and SEC/ PCAOB • Code, EU, SEC/PCAOB • All acknowledge that providing NAS to audit clients might create “threats” to independence • All include prohibitions for similar types of NAS, but different approaches used (e.g. materiality, self-review, threats and safeguards)

  22. Preliminary Benchmarking IESBA Code vs EU Regulation IESBA Code • Focus only NAS prohibitions that apply to PIEs • Most NAS prohibitions have materiality as a qualifier • Includes contextual information about each type of NAS EU Regulation • Focus on EU Regulation only, which applies to PIEs only • Absolute prohibitions • Materiality consideration allowed for Member States, not firms IESBA

  23. Preliminary Benchmarking Code Versus SEC/PCAOB • Focus on certain types of NAS • Accounting and bookkeeping, tax, administrative, valuation, loaned staff, internal audit, IT, legal, recruiting • Different approach • Self-review threats, materiality, significant, safeguards in Code vs. “not subject to audit” in SEC/ PCAOB • Different lexicon • Firm and network firm, non-assurance, divisions and related entities in Code vs. Accounting firm, non-audit, and affiliate of the entity in SEC/ PCAOB

  24. Proposed Timeline

  25. Matters for Considerations • Do IESBA members agree with the WG’s assessments and proposals? • Do IESBA members believe that all NAS matters for consideration are appropriately dealt in the Project Proposal? • Are there any other matters that IESBA members believe should be dealt with in a NAS project?

  26. Project Proposal • Do IESBA members agree to approve the NAS Project Proposal?

  27. The Ethics Board www.ethicsboard.org

More Related