[Peanut Butter is Good]

Need clarification: This is from a Becker question BTW

For non-independent accountants issuing compilation reports, it says this: Practitioners have the option, but are not required, to disclose the reasons for an independence impairment in the report. If the disclosure is made, then all reasons for independence impairment must be presented.

*** If practitioners must disclose lack of independence, and also have the option (but are not required) to disclose the reasons for their lack of independence, then how can it also be that they are required to reveal all reasons for not being independent? This seems like a contradiction. Maybe I am reading it wrong…. maybe it means that if you start explaining your lack of independence, then you have to explain it thoroughly, as in 100% or 0% explanation….. but I have no idea, because of the way it’s worded. ****

Does anybody grasp this concept, and see what I’m missing?

[Kimboroni]

It does seem a bit off. But I think you're right– they can't pick and choose which reasons to disclose.

AUD 84 (1/9/14-Wiley books/TB + free materials)
FAR 83 (5/21/14-the above + NINJA 10 Pt Combo Lite)
REG 84 (7/9/14-Wiley books/TB + NINJA Audio/FC/Notes)
BEC 76 (10/5/14-Wiley books/TB + NINJA Audio/FC)

Disclaimer: My ninja avatar is not meant to imply that I have any affiliation with this site other than being a forum member. That's a pic of a T-shirt that my daughter gave me for my birthday. 🙂

[Anonymous]

The way I read it: if you are not independent, you have to say “hey, I'm not independent” but don't have to say why. If you do say why you're not independent, it's all or nothing. List every single reason. If you only list some, then it's like you're trying to hide something. If you try to hide something, that can be interpreted as fraudulent reporting, and you don't want to sign fraudulent financials.

[Author]

Replies