1 / 14

Structure of the Code

Structure of the Code. Don Thomson Working Group Chair IESBA Member IESBA Meeting December 4-6, 2013 New York. Background. Prior years – C oncerns expressed May - October 2013 – Research supports change – CAG & NSS input received September 2013 – Findings

naida
Download Presentation

Structure of the Code

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Structure of the Code Don Thomson Working Group Chair IESBA Member IESBA Meeting December 4-6, 2013 New York

  2. Background • Prior years – Concerns expressed • May - October 2013 – Research supports change – CAG & NSS input received • September 2013 – Findings • December 2013 – Recommendations

  3. Distinguishing requirements Recommendations: • Distinguish requirements from guidance • enhance understandability & enforceability • Confirm: conceptual framework is a requirement • Guidance adjacent to relevant requirements

  4. Responsibility of individuals Recommendations: • Firms' policies & procedures shall enable identification of the individual responsible for independence in a particular circumstance • Change passive clauses to active where the change would not change the meaning

  5. Clarity of language Recommendations: • Reduce the reading age • Extend drafting conventions • Avoid stock phrases & linguistic nuances • Use more sub-headings • Use an editor • Consider translatability of changes

  6. Electronic Code Recommendations: • Coordinate changes with other recommendations • Filter content by: user / service / client • Enhance search functionality • Develop hyperlinks • Improve navigation

  7. Repackaging Recommendations: • Coordinate changes with electronic Code • Separate independence • Rebrand independence • International Standards on Independence

  8. ComplementaryMaterials Recommendations: • Work with others to develop materials • Examples: • Short summaries, FAQs and case studies • Bases for conclusions • Address these after restructuring the Code

  9. Restructuringexample (2-C) • Three segments of Section 290 reworked • Stage one of a process to explore the practical challenges of addressing visibility & responsibility • These are not proposals • Presented to obtain IESBA views on 7 questions

  10. Restructuring example (2-C) • Would changes (IN BOLD) prescribing specific responsibility make the Code more enforceable? • Any comments on the changes (IN BOLD) where rewording may change the meaning of the Code? • Are direct statements (audit may not be performed unless….) clearer than passive statements?

  11. Restructuring example (2-C) • Do changes so far enhance clarity of language? • Any comments on the order of the requirements? • e.g. Whether “threats” should precede or follow matters “specifically not permitted” • Is “compliance with conceptual framework” language too broad or not broad enough? • Do “purpose” paragraphs assist as introductions?

  12. Restructuring example (2-C) • Any other questions arising from this approach? • Does the IESBA support further work on the application of the recommendations to Section 290? • Separating requirements from guidance • Strengthening 290.12

  13. Other matters Comments or Questions?

More Related