New Peer Review Report Language for Peer Reviews Commencing after December 31, 2016

The AICPA Peer Review Board approved changes to the peer review standards in its November 14, 2016 Open Session. The changes are effective for peer reviews commencing on or after January 1, 2017. The key changes are as follows:

  • New peer review report language
  • New representation letter language (this is the representation letter you sign at the conclusion of your peer review)

The new peer review reports looks more like our present audit opinions. Here’s an example.

Peer Review Report with a Peer Review Rating of Pass in a System Review

Report on the Firm’s System of Quality Control

October 31, 2017

To the Partners of Smith & Jones, LLP and the Peer Review Committee of the North Carolina Association of CPAs.

We have reviewed the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of Smith & Jones, LLP (the firm) in effect for the year ended June 30, 2017. Our peer review was conducted in accordance with the Standards for Performing and Reporting on Peer Reviews established by the Peer Review Board of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (Standards).

A summary of the nature, objectives, scope, limitations of, and the procedures performed in a System Review as described in the Standards may be found at aicpa.org/prsummary. The summary also includes an explanation of how engagements identified as not performed or reported in conformity with applicable professional standards, if any, are evaluated by a peer reviewer to determine a peer review rating.

Firm’s Responsibility

The firm is responsible for designing a system of quality control and complying with it to provide the firm with reasonable assurance of performing and reporting in conformity with applicable professional standards in all material respects. The firm is also responsible for evaluating actions to promptly remediate engagements deemed as not performed or reported in conformity with professional standards, when appropriate, and for remediating weaknesses in its system of quality control, if any.

Peer Reviewer’s Responsibility

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the design of the system of quality control and the firm’s compliance therewith based on our review.

Required Selections and Considerations

Engagements selected for review included an engagement performed under Government Auditing Standards, including a compliance audit under the Single Audit Act, and an audit of an employee benefit plan.

As a part of our peer review, we considered reviews by regulatory entities as communicated by the firm, if applicable, in determining the nature and extent of our procedures.

Opinion

In our opinion, the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of Smith & Jones, LLP in effect for the year ended June 30, 2017, has been suitably designed and complied with to provide the firm with reasonable assurance of performing and reporting in conformity with applicable professional standards in all material respects. Firms can receive a rating of pass, pass with deficiency(ies) or fail. XYZ & Co. has received a peer review rating of pass.

Bobbye Kelly & Associates

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *