Technical Reviewers "Top 10 List"
Reasons Why Reviews are Delayed!!!
by Abby Dawson, Jack Harding and Paul Moran
- Reports that are drafted using the singular "I"
rather than "We." Most peer review reports should be
written as "We have reviewed", etc. Only reports
of a firm-on-firm review performed by a sole proprietor
should use "I."
- Reports on an engagement peer review that are
not properly tailored, i.e., Using the incorrect closing
regarding documentation requirements.
- Report wording that does not follow standard
wording. Check conform/comply.
- Letters of comments that do not identify
findings that are repeated from the prior review.
- Work papers that are ILLEGIBLE. They make
everyone's job more difficult.
- Firms that do not respond promptly with a Letter
of Response or to reviewer inquiries.
- The year-end of the review is incorrect. The
review year-end should remain the same from review to
review.
- Reviewers that do not follow guidance in
selecting the correct number of reports to be reviewed
on an engagement review. Selecting the inappropriate
number of engagements initially will require the
reviewer to go back and select more as mandated by the
AICPA.
- Reviewers that do not respond promptly to
technical reviewer inquiries.
- Letter of Response that is a direct quote from
the peer review Standards. Reviewers should inform the
firm that it is only a sample to be used in guidance in
preparing their own response to the letter of comments.
|
