The case of the slam Duncan
Ethics
Charles Selcer, CPA, MBA | November 2020 Footnote
Editor's note: Updated October 30, 2020
Duncan Ball, CPA is the senior on the audit of Flexible Opinions, Inc. (FOI), a public opinion research company. FOI lost its controller in September and needs help with certain accounting duties in preparation for their year-end audit. Duncan’s CPA firm wants to send Duncan to FOI to help in November. The audit work won’t begin until March 1, and Duncan’s assignment at FOI will only last two weeks under the supervision of the FOI CFO.
Q. Can Duncan be on the audit team in March?
A. The staff augmentation issue has been on the AICPA’s radar for a while. Their first exposure draft on staff augmentation, in November 2019, died on the vine. A new exposure draft was issued on Sept. 8, 2020, with comments due Dec. 8, 2020. That exposure draft says that the person who is augmented to the client can neither participate in nor influence an attest engagement that includes the staff augmentation arrangement. While this exposure draft is not effective yet, it clearly shows that the Professional Ethics Executive Committee (PEEC) feels this self-review threat exists. See the exposure draft at AICPA.org.
