Peer Review Guide

Apycom Java Applets
  Apycom Java Applets
 

Peer Review Guide > Engagement Selection for Engagement Reviews

Engagement Selection Guidelines for Engagement Reviews

Selection Objective
Selection Guidelines
Scope Expansion


Selection Objective.
The reviewer should select a limited sample of engagements from among the types of accounting and attestation engagements performed by the firm for the purpose of providing limited assurance on the sample selected.

Top of page

Selection Guidelines.
Standards for Performing and Reporting on Peer Reviews have established the following guidelines for selecting engagements for review. A reviewer ordinarily should select the types of engagements to be submitted for review, in accordance with the following guidelines.

  1. One engagement should be selected from each of the following areas of service performed by the firm:

    1. Review of historical financial statements

    2. Compilation of historical financial statements, with disclosures

    3. Compilation of historical financial statements that omits substantially all disclosures
    4. Attestation.
  2. One engagement should be selected from each partner of the firm responsible for the issuance of reports listed in item a above.

  3. Ordinarily, at least two engagements should be selected for review.

Top of page

Scope Expansion.
It is generally not appropriate to expand a scope in an engagement review. Here's why. The scope of an engagement review is intended to report matters related to only on the engagements selected for review and would not extend to engagement beyond that scope. If deficiencies that meet the threshold for reporting are observed, then the matters should be included, at a minimum, in the letter of comments. Expanding the scope, for example, to determine if a deficiency is isolated would not mitigate the obligation to include the original matter in the letter of comments. Likewise, if a significant engagement deficiency was noted, then that matter would be included as a modifier in the reviewer's report, whether or not the matter was treated correctly in other engagements.

Top of page

Peer Review Guide > Engagement Selection - Engagement


Copyright © 1997-2001, Duane Reyhl
  E-mail: dreyhl@reyhl.com

Updated: January 27, 2002