Apycom Java Applets
  Apycom Java Applets
 

Overview

This list is not all-inclusive, but contains the most common deficiencies observed in peer reviews of CPA firms.

Remember the following when using these lists:

Be Alert for New Standards

Reviewers should consider the increased risk associated with the implementation of new professional standards. Many 2005 peer reviews could will include engagements for which firms will have implemented, for the first time, a number of new significant standards (e.g., SAS No. 99, SSRAS No. 10, and GASB No. 34.) To the extent that deficiencies are noted in these areas, as with the implementation of any new standard, the reviewer should carefully consider the underlying cause of the deficiencies.

Judgment

The significance of any matter is relative to the circumstances of the particular engagement. The reviewed firm is more knowledgeable about these circumstances than the reviewer. The peer reviewer should the consider the firm's unique knowledge when forming his or her conclusion about whether or not a matter is an engagement deficiency.

Type of Peer Review

How you report a matter depends on the type of review.  For a system review (a report on the system of quality control), an engagement deficiency is included as a finding if the deficiency is symptomatic of a broader weakness in the firm's overall policies or procedures. For an engagement review (a report on specific engagements), all engagement deficiencies are included in the report.