Welcome to Luca!globe
AICPA PEER REVIEW BOARD VOTES TO BALLOT ON EXPOSURE DRAFT Current Issue!    Navigation Tips!
Main Menu
CPA Journal
FAE
Professional Libary
Professional Forums
Member Services
Marketplace
Committees
Chapters
     Search
     Software
     Personal
     Help

AICPA PEER REVIEW BOARD VOTES TO BALLOT ON
EXPOSURE DRAFT

The AICPA Peer Review Board at its meeting in October 1996 voted proposed changes to Standards for Performing and Reporting on Peer Reviews. The ballot draft has not undergone any major changes from the original proposal, except that the effective date was modified from all peer reviews commencing on or after January 1, 1997, to all peer review years beginning on or after January 1, 1997. The change in the effective date is to eliminate some of the transitional issues and provide time for the development of educational and implementation guidance materials. The effective date of the proposed peer review standards was initially established to coincide with the new statements on quality control standards. Firms' establishing quality control standards under SQCS Nos. 2 and 3 that have their peer review during 1997 would fall into a transitional period, where part of their review year would fall under the nine elements of quality control standards while the other part of the year would fall under the new five elements and the monitoring standard called for in SQCS No. 2 and 3. The initiation of the new quality control standards is still effective January 1, 1997. The exposure draft's effective date change does not impact the establishment date of the new quality control standards.

The change in date, however, does have an effect on one of the proposed changes that would have allowed a team captain to serve in such capacity for more than two successive reviews of the same firm, which is prohibited by current standards. The change in effective date pushes a team captain's ability to perform successive reviews one year further down the road into 1998. The end result may be that sole practitioners will have to decline performing reviews of firms scheduled for 1997 for whom they have performed two prior reviews, while knowing they could perform reviews for those firms if scheduled for 1998 *



The CPA Journal is broadly recognized as an outstanding, technical-refereed publication aimed at public practitioners, management, educators, and other accounting professionals. It is edited by CPAs for CPAs. Our goal is to provide CPAs and other accounting professionals with the information and news to enable them to be successful accountants, managers, and executives in today's practice environments.

©2009 The New York State Society of CPAs. Legal Notices

Visit the new cpajournal.com.