- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi
If there is an ethical threat of fee dependency, then in its safeguard would it be appropriate to write that If fees exceed 15% then other services offered to client should be reduced to bring the threshold below 15% or firm should consider joint audit?
Joint audit is definitely not a solution (they are relatively rare and expensive to the client).
If to not provide other services would bring the fees down below the 15% threshold that would be a possibility – but the consequence for the client is that that is likely to be more costly. So the matter should be discussed with TCWG (so they are aware of the threat) and either a “hot” (pre-issuance) or “cold” (post-issuance) independent review carried out. (A hot review is required if a cold review would not reduce the risk to an acceptable level.)Examiner in its solution have mentioned 4 points as a safeguard that:
Audit firm should assess whether audit and non audit assignment fee would represent more than 15% of gross practice income for two consecutive years.
If the recurring fees are likely to exceed 15% of annual
practice income this year, additional consideration should be
given as to whether the non audit assignments should be undertaken by the firm.In addition, if the fees do exceed 15%, then this should be
disclosed to those charged with governanceIf the firm retains all work, it should arrange for a
pre-issuance (before the audit opinion is issued) or
post-issuance (after the opinion has been issued) review to
be undertaken by an external accountant or by a regulatory
bodySo in exam if we do not write all above four points and instead just write the first 3 points so would it be enough to obtain 1 mark for safeguard?
Only the last point is technically the safeguard but, as the examiner’s answer indicates, the other points are relevant so would be awarded the mark.
So to keep it simple would it be enough to write that if the fees exceed 15%, then this should be disclosed to those charged with governance and either a “hot” (pre-issuance) or “cold” (post-issuance) independent review should be carried out.
Would it be fine and enough for 1 mark?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.