AUDITORS are to be banned from using internal audit staff as members of audit engagement teams under new rules announced by the reporting watchdog.
The new requirement is one of a number of revisions to standards that govern external auditors' use of the work of internal audit outlined by the IAASB last year.
UK reporting watchdog the FRC is adopting the changes, subject to the timing of implementation, with the aim of preserving auditor independence.
"Direct assistance involves some of the audit being undertaken by individuals that are not independent of the audited entity. Shareholders generally expect that external auditors should be seen to be free from threats to their independence," said Nick Land [pictured], FRC board member and chairman of the Audit and Assurance Council.
"Permitting the direct use of internal auditors involves agreeing lower independence standards for some members of the audit engagement team, which leans against this expectation," Land added.
The improvements reflect changes to the IAASB's international standards on auditing, the aim of which was to enable better use of internal audit findings and strengthen external auditors' evaluation of the work of the internal audit.
Separately, the the Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) has published a draft code that will expand the scope of internal audit within financial services.
The draft code, produced by a committee chaired by Roger Marshall, chair of the FRC's accounting council, builds on guidance recently issued by the Basel Committee and the US Federal Reserve Bank.
It recommends that the scope of internal audit should be unlimited and that internal auditors should not be barred from assessing the management of any risk in any part of the business; that the primary reporting line of internal audit should be to the chairman of the board of directors, not to the chief executive and that internal audit should assess whether the organisation's processes and actions are in line with its values, ethics, risk appetite and policies.
"This will help clarify internal audit's role in relation to, for example, the quality of information on which boards base their decisions, or whether the risks associated with key decisions such as on takeovers, are properly managed," said Marshall.
This is a positive change but will be challeninging to impliment, many times I have been asked to do 'direct assistance' work for public accountants - always in low risk areas (aka boring, compliance stuff) When asked why they do not rely on work already done they mutter about rules etc, when asked what the benefit will be (ie cost savings) they can not answer. Almost invitabllty we end up not assisting them in this way and instead they use our existing work product which is usually done based on our own risk assesment of what could actually go wrong!
Maybe now they can not palm of all the 'boring' bits they will take another look at if they should be doing them at all?
Posted by: Tom Harper, 20 Feb 2013 | 12:57
You may also like
If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.
In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.