Monday, October 26, 2009
NEWS: Windows 7 Certification
I'm at the CCH User Conference 2009 and this morning I attended a session entitled "Microsoft's New Windows 7 - Considerations". The best piece of information was given at the end. A Windows 7 certification chart was shown which stated the compatibility (or planned compatibility) of each CCH product. Engagement's was slated for 12/9/2009 when version 6.1 is to be released.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
NEWS: Windows 7 Compatibility, Again
I just checked out the Windows 7 Compatibility Center and saw that Microsoft is saying that the ProSystem fx Suite is compatible with the 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows 7 (the links will also show other CCH products compatible with Windows 7). I haven't had a chance to test this out myself with the released/retail version but I'll get back to you soon.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Issue: Verifying workpapers are reviewed in a timely manner
Issue: The AICPA's QC Section 10 paragraph 60 states:
Discussion: Since the workpapers and their sign offs are in an electronic environment, just about anything can be logged given the right programming on CCH's side. First, one must decide what electronic evidence would provide assurance of a timely review. Does timely review mean a short time beteen the preparer's sign off and the start of the reviewer's work? Or does it mean the time between the preparer's sign off and the reviewer's sign off? The second example is functionally all we can hope for since Engagement doesn't track the start and finish of any employee's work and CCH programed Engagement to retain the sign offs indefinitely which means the data we need is there (the end of the preparer's work and the reviewer's work).
Resolution: Well, there isn't a resolution for now. While the data exists, a method to extract the data does not. I spoke with CCH Support today asking about a method to pull all the sign offs for all the workpapers. The reply was that the sign off summary report and sign off summary view are the closest thing currently available. The only problem with those options is that neither shows the preparer's sign offs which severly limits the evidence one could use to affirm compliance with the the timely basis requirement in QC Section 10 leaving firms to devise another way outside of Engagement to provide evidence.
Update (11/11/2009): I've got mud on my face. I was so tuned in on finding the sign off data in the binder view that I missed the Workpaper Sign Off History Report that is accessible in the File Room view. Just select the binder you want and select Tools Reports Workpaper Sign Off History Report. The report is exported to Excel and shows the workpaper name, who signed off, the role of the person signing off (preparer, reviewer, 2nd reviewer), and the date of the sign off. This report provides all the raw data necessary to start an evaluation.
However, the raw data is not enough. Professional judgment should come into play when determining if a workpaper file was reviewed in a timely manner. One engagement cannot be evaluated in isolation. It should be evaluated in the context of the firm's situation including staffing, problems in other engagements the team may be working on, etc. So, the moral of the story is that a firm should determine what its best practice is as far as "reviewed in a timely manner" is concerned and then stick to it. The Workpaper Sign Off History Report can play a part of a firm's defined evaluation process but should not be the sole part in the solution.
Review responsibility policies and procedures should be determined on the basis that qualified engagement team members, which may include the engagement partner, review work performed by other team members on a timely basis.How does a firm using Engagement verify compliance with the "timely basis" requirement?
Discussion: Since the workpapers and their sign offs are in an electronic environment, just about anything can be logged given the right programming on CCH's side. First, one must decide what electronic evidence would provide assurance of a timely review. Does timely review mean a short time beteen the preparer's sign off and the start of the reviewer's work? Or does it mean the time between the preparer's sign off and the reviewer's sign off? The second example is functionally all we can hope for since Engagement doesn't track the start and finish of any employee's work and CCH programed Engagement to retain the sign offs indefinitely which means the data we need is there (the end of the preparer's work and the reviewer's work).
Resolution: Well, there isn't a resolution for now. While the data exists, a method to extract the data does not. I spoke with CCH Support today asking about a method to pull all the sign offs for all the workpapers. The reply was that the sign off summary report and sign off summary view are the closest thing currently available. The only problem with those options is that neither shows the preparer's sign offs which severly limits the evidence one could use to affirm compliance with the the timely basis requirement in QC Section 10 leaving firms to devise another way outside of Engagement to provide evidence.
Update (11/11/2009): I've got mud on my face. I was so tuned in on finding the sign off data in the binder view that I missed the Workpaper Sign Off History Report that is accessible in the File Room view. Just select the binder you want and select Tools Reports Workpaper Sign Off History Report. The report is exported to Excel and shows the workpaper name, who signed off, the role of the person signing off (preparer, reviewer, 2nd reviewer), and the date of the sign off. This report provides all the raw data necessary to start an evaluation.
However, the raw data is not enough. Professional judgment should come into play when determining if a workpaper file was reviewed in a timely manner. One engagement cannot be evaluated in isolation. It should be evaluated in the context of the firm's situation including staffing, problems in other engagements the team may be working on, etc. So, the moral of the story is that a firm should determine what its best practice is as far as "reviewed in a timely manner" is concerned and then stick to it. The Workpaper Sign Off History Report can play a part of a firm's defined evaluation process but should not be the sole part in the solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)