Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
Both committees would support a cooling-off period before a former engagement partner can serve as an engagement quality reviewer. However, we realize that the IAASB requires a two-year cooling-off period, so we would support a similar requirement.
A two-year cooling off period is required before an audit engagement partner can act as a reviewer for their former client. The reviewer must be competent and capable of performing the role including understanding the legal and professional framework, firm policies relevant to the engagement and have an appropriate knowledge of the client industry.
1 Αυγ 2022 · This paper examines the association between the length of the cooling-off period and audit quality: (1) when partners rotate back and (2) during the cooling-off period, ahead of an extension to the minimum cooling-off period requirement in Australia.
8 Μαΐ 2018 · The new cooling-off period is five years for engagement partners, three years for engagement quality-control reviewers, and two years for all other key audit partners.
Integrated within MPR requirements, minimum cooling-off periods regulate audit quality at the time of a rotation-back. Within the context of a proposed extension to the minimum cooling-off period, we examine the association between the length of the cooling-off period and audit quality.
cooling-off periods for EQ reviews provided that they are inspected at least once every three years (PCAOB Release 2009-004, AS 7 -Engagement Quality Review). At its October ASB meeting, the ASB considered the following three options: • No cooling-off period, with application guidance similar to that exposed by the IAASB in the exposure draft ...
12 Δεκ 2022 · Explicitly refers to and supports the requirement in ISQM 2 for a firm to establish, as a condition for eligibility, a cooling-off period of two years before an engagement partner can assume the EQR role on the same engagement.
