As part of its Clarity project (see http://www.ifac.org/IAASB/ProjectHistory.php?ProjID=0024) the IAASB is currently redrafting ISQC1 and ISA 220. Following a period of public exposure the Board will be considering the project task force's suggestions on how to accommodate ED comments at its June meeting. The relevant papers are at http://www.ifac.org/IAASB/Meeting-BGPapers.php?MID=0142&ViewCat=0938.
To assist the SMP Committee in its dialogue with the IAASB the committee is seeking SMPs views on some of the questions raised in Agenda Item 3-A, in particular:
1. Do you agree with the Task Force's position to revert to the extant definition of "engagement quality control reviewer?" (A.2 Definition of Engagement Quality Control Reviewer, paragraphs 10-12)
2. Do you agree with the Task Force's proposal to add guidance as assistance to SMPs, related to when requirements for an engagement quality control reviews may not apply? (A.4 Application of Requirements for Engagement Quality Control Reviews in an SMP Environment, paragraphs 16-17)
3. Do you agree:(a) that no change be made to the Authority of this ISQC 1 to permit a departure from a requirement;
(b) with the addition of application material to assist SMPs; and
(c) that providing implementation guidance specific to SMPs on the application of the requirements would be beyond the clarity mandate?
(I. Application of ISQC 1 (Redrafted) to all Firms, paragraphs 47-52)
4. Do you agree with the Task Force's proposal (as noted in paragraph 54 above) to move the elevated material to Application and Other Explanatory Material? (J.1 Elements of a System of Quality Control, ED-ISQC 1 Paragraphs 17-18, paragraphs 53-54).