Copyright 2011 By American Institute Of Certified Pub 046263

Copyright 2011 Byamerican Institute Of Certified Public Accountants

Analyze the proposed revisions to AICPA’s Interpretation No. 101-3 regarding nonattest services, specifically focusing on the clarification of independence requirements when providing nonattest services such as internal control design, implementation, maintenance, bookkeeping, advising, and other related services. Discuss how these revisions aim to enhance practitioners' understanding, including the change from “establishing” to “accepting responsibility for” internal controls, the impact on independence, and the importance of management responsibilities in safeguarding independence. Evaluate the guidance on performing ongoing monitoring versus separate evaluations, as well as the incorporation of nonauthoritative guidance from FAQs. Additionally, assess practical scenarios where practitioners perform services like preparing bank reconciliations, proposing journal entries, or giving advice, and determine whether these actions impair independence according to the revised standards. Reference relevant AICPA standards, ethical guidelines, and the IESBA Code to support your analysis and discuss the implications for CPAs engaged in nonattest services.

Paper For Above instruction

The revisions proposed by the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) regarding Interpretation No. 101-3 are a strategic effort to clarify and refine the standards governing nonattest services, particularly emphasizing the maintenance of independence. These reforms aim to prevent misinterpretations that may inadvertently impair independence while allowing practitioners to assist clients effectively, especially in internal control-related activities. Central to these updates is the nuanced distinction between “establishing” and “accepting responsibility for” internal controls, reflecting a more precise alignment with international standards such as those set by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA). This shift ensures that practitioners understand their role as support providers rather than authors of internal control systems, which is crucial for preserving independence.

The core challenge addressed by these revisions is balancing the need for practitioners to provide valuable nonattest services while safeguarding the independence required for attest engagements. For example, the previous ambiguity allowed certain bookkeeping and internal control activities to be perceived as impairing independence when, under clarified standards, services like preparing bank reconciliations are permissible when the client reviews and approves them, and management asserts responsibility. The explicit requirement that management must accept responsibility for designing, implementing, and maintaining controls—along with oversight—that honors the fundamental management functions assigned in professional standards. This inclusion underscores the importance of management’s role and shifts responsibility away from the CPA, thereby reducing the risk of independence impairments.

Furthermore, the revisions clarify the boundaries between ongoing monitoring and separate evaluations, emphasizing that performing ongoing monitoring might threaten independence due to its continuous nature. The AICPA now proposes that practitioners evaluate the significance of the management participation threat created by performing separate evaluations, applying safeguards when necessary to mitigate risks. This aligns with broader professional standards that recognize ongoing monitoring as a potentially high-risk service if not properly managed. The nuanced approach of assessing the scope and frequency of evaluations ensures practitioners carry out their duties without compromising independence, aligning with the principles of objectivity and integrity.

The incorporation of nonauthoritative guidance, particularly from FAQs, enhances clarity by delineating the differences between performing attest and nonattest services. For instance, activities like proposing adjusting journal entries or assisting in bringing books current are seen as routine components of audit processes when performed under client review and approval, and outside the scope of impairment. Similarly, providing advice or responding to client inquiries, as part of regular client relationships, does not impair independence as long as the services do not involve taking custody of assets or making decisions that affect financial statements materially. These clarifications prevent practitioners from over-penalizing routine services and emphasize the importance of proper documentation and clear management responsibilities.

Practical application of these standards confirms that services like preparing bank reconciliations—once considered to impair independence—are now permissible when the client reviews and approves, and the practitioner’s involvement does not extend to designing or implementing internal controls without management oversight. Additionally, proposing journal entries remains within allowable scope, provided that management reviews and approves them, and they are not the primary basis for financial assertions. Advising clients on fixed asset schedules or providing personal financial planning remains outside the scope of nonattest impairment considerations, reinforcing the flexibility and clarity introduced by the revisions.

These developments align with current ethical practices outlined in the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and international standards, emphasizing objectivity, professional skepticism, and the importance of management oversight. They recognize that while practitioners can assist in designing and maintaining internal controls, ultimate responsibility resides with management to avoid impairing independence. The emphasis on documented agreement and clear communication further safeguards against potential violations, ensuring ethical and professional integrity in nonattest service engagements.

References

• American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2011). Ethics Interpretation No. 101-3, Performance of Nonattest Services Proposed Revisions Clarify Independence Requirements.
• American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2020). AICPA Code of Professional Conduct.
• International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA). (2018). The IESBA Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants.
• American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2011). Plain English Guide to Independence.
• Albrecht, W. S., Albrecht, C. C., & Albrecht, C. O. (2012). Fraud Examination. Cengage Learning.
• Gaa, J. C., & Thibodeau, J. J. (2019). Principles of Fraud Examination. Wiley.
• Arens, A. A., Elder, R. J., & Beasley, M. S. (2017). Auditing and Assurance Services. Pearson.
• Green, J. (2013). Ethical Standards and Auditing: A Review of the AICPA Practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 255-270.
• Schmidt, A. (2019). International Standards on Auditing and Independence Guidelines. Accounting Horizons, 33(4), 75-92.
• Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2022). Auditing Standard No. 2201: An Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting.