Docstoc

Follow-up-review-recommended-report

Document Sample
Follow-up-review-recommended-report Powered By Docstoc
					Quality Review Report




                               Follow Up Review Report


                                 Private and Confidential

To:   Manager – Professional Assurance
      CPA Australia Ltd
      PO Box 2820
      MELBOURNE VIC 3001



      Review Code

      Reviewer Name

      Date




  Report on Member's Compliance with Quality Control
                      Standard
                 Recommendation – Follow Up Review*




2e4e78be-b1bd-4b87-9d82-c6ec0451b8d3.doc                    1
Version: June 2009
Quality Review Report


Scope
I have conducted a Quality Review (the Review) of the quality control system of the above
member as at the above date. The member is responsible for the development, maintenance and
implementation of the system of quality control. I have conducted the Review in order to express
an opinion and make recommendations as to whether the member's quality control system
provides reasonable assurance that the member and their personnel are conforming with
professional standards and legal and regulatory requirements.
This report has been prepared solely for CPA Australia Ltd for the purpose of the Quality Review
Program of CPA Australia Ltd. I disclaim any assumption of responsibility for any reliance on this
report to any person other than CPA Australia Ltd.
My Review was conducted in accordance with the policies and procedures established by CPA
Australia Ltd for Quality Reviews. My Review was limited to a review of the member's system of
quality control based on information provided by the member and a review of the application of the
member's quality control procedures in a selected sample of engagement files. My procedures
included examination on a test basis of evidence supporting the member's assertions as to
compliance with professional standards.


Recommendation
I recommend that the member’s system of quality control be subject to further review before the
member’s obligations under the Quality Review Program be finalised.
My reason(s) for recommending a follow up review is/are as follows:
Non-compliance with
(list breaches here)




Reviewer’s Summary – Matters Leading to Follow Up Recommendation
I have attached a summary of my findings which led to a follow up review being recommended,
and of my recommendations for improvement. The member has reviewed the findings and the
recommendations for improvement and any written comments of the member are also included.


Reviewer's Summary - Other Matters
I have attached a summary of my other findings, comments and suggestions in relation to other
areas where I consider the member could enhance the quality control systems and / or the
operation of the practice. The member has reviewed the summary, and any written comments of
the member are also included.


Signed by Reviewer:                                                   Date:
                          [Print Name]

Signed by Member:                                                     Date:
                          [Member Code]


* CPA Australia Ltd will review the report and the suitability of the recommendation



2e4e78be-b1bd-4b87-9d82-c6ec0451b8d3.doc                                                         2
Version: June 2009
Quality Review Report


Reviewer's Summary - Matters Leading To Follow Up Recommendation
The following provides a summary of the findings of the review I have conducted which led to the
follow-up review recommendation. In my opinion, the breaches of mandatory professional
standards that resulted in a Follow-up Review Recommended report were caused by a deficiency
in the quality control identified below.

Mandatory           Deficiency identified and how, in the opinion of the Member comments
professional        reviewer, quality control policies and procedures
standard(s)         could be improved.
breached




Signed by Reviewer:                                               Date:
                          [Print Name]

Signed by Member:                                                 Date:
                          [Member Code]




2e4e78be-b1bd-4b87-9d82-c6ec0451b8d3.doc                                                       3
Version: June 2009
Quality Review Report


                                           Reviewer's Summary

Force of law
APES 320 has mandatory application upon members and practices providing accounting and
other professional services to the public whether such services are assurance or non-assurance.
Furthermore, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) has issued revised auditing
standards as legislative instruments under the Corporations Act 2001, effective for financial
reporting periods commencing on or after 1 July 2006. For Corporations Act audits and reviews,
those standards will have the force of law. To the extent that those force of law auditing standards
make reference to the quality control requirements for firms issued by a professional accounting
body, the requirements of APES 320 have the same level of legal enforceability as the explanatory
guidance in which such reference is included in respect of Corporations Act audits and reviews.


Elements of a System of Quality Control
Members of CPA Australia Ltd offering Assurance services to the public are required to apply the
whole of APES 320 Quality Control for Firms, as applicable to their Assurance Practice having
regard to the six (6) Elements of a System of Quality Control that are specified in this standard.
Firms that do not have an Assurance Practice, or the non-assurance parts of Firms with an
Assurance Practice, are required to apply all paragraphs of APES 320 where applicable other than
those boxed and designated ‘Assurance Practices only’.

Assurance Services
A service or engagement undertaken by a member with the purpose of adding credibility to a
subject matter, in order to increase the degree of confidence of users of the subject matter. This
is achieved by the member expressing an opinion on the reliability of the information in question.
For example, an audit is a type of assurance engagement the member undertakes in order to
provide an opinion on the reliability of the information contained in the financial report. An internal
control system assurance engagement is undertaken in order to provide confidence to the
intended user, which may include banks, regulators or any other party requesting such a report,
that the entity’s internal control system is appropriately designed and is operating effectively.
Examples of common assurance engagements are shown below.
Common Assurance Engagements may involve a member providing an opinion on the reliability
of:
       A financial report (an audit)
       Prospective financial information i.e. prospectus, cash flow forecasts etc.
       Internal control systems
       Environmental performance
       IT Systems
       Performance measures
       Corporate governance
       Risk management systems




2e4e78be-b1bd-4b87-9d82-c6ec0451b8d3.doc                                                              4
Version: June 2009
Quality Review Report


                           Reviewer’s Summary – Quality control
The following commentary is my summary of the observed compliance with the six mandatory
elements of APES 320, being:
             Leadership responsibilities for quality within the firm
             Ethical requirements
             Acceptance and continuance of client relationships and specific engagements
             Human resources
             Engagement performance
             Monitoring
In addition, there is a requirement for quality control policies and procedures to be documented
and communicated.




2e4e78be-b1bd-4b87-9d82-c6ec0451b8d3.doc                                                       5
Version: June 2009
Quality Review Report


                            Reviewer’s Summary - Other Matters

Included below are my comments arising from the review of a more general and/or educational
nature; recommendations, suggestions for practice improvement and any other relevant
commentary.




2e4e78be-b1bd-4b87-9d82-c6ec0451b8d3.doc                                                  6
Version: June 2009
Quality Review Report


                                           Member’s comments




2e4e78be-b1bd-4b87-9d82-c6ec0451b8d3.doc                       7
Version: June 2009

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:6
posted:4/23/2011
language:English
pages:7