HKSQM 2 - Engagement Quality Reviews
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope of HKSQM 2
HKSQM 2 deals with two primary areas:
- Appointment and eligibility of the engagement quality reviewer
- Responsibilities of the engagement quality reviewer relating to performance and documentation of an engagement quality review
Key Scope Provisions:
- Applies to all engagements requiring an engagement quality review under HKSQM 1
- Premised on the firm being subject to HKSQM 1 or local requirements at least as demanding
- Must be read in conjunction with relevant ethical requirements
- The engagement quality review is a specified response designed and implemented by the firm under HKSQM 1
- Performance is undertaken at the engagement level by the engagement quality reviewer on behalf of the firm
1.2 Scalability
The nature, timing, and extent of procedures vary depending on:
- Nature and circumstances of the engagement
- Nature and circumstances of the entity
- For example: procedures would likely be less extensive for engagements involving fewer significant judgments
1.3 The Firm's System of Quality Management and Role of Engagement Quality Reviews
HKSQM 1 Foundation:
- Establishes firm's responsibilities for its system of quality management
- Requires firm to design and implement responses to address quality risks
- Specified responses include establishing policies or procedures addressing engagement quality reviews in accordance with HKSQM 2
Firm's Objective under HKSQM 1:
The objective of the firm is to design, implement and operate a system of quality management that provides reasonable assurance that:
(a) The firm and its personnel fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and conduct engagements in accordance with such standards and requirements; and
(b) Engagement reports issued by the firm or engagement partners are appropriate in the circumstances.
Nature of Engagement Quality Review:
- An objective evaluation of significant judgments made by the engagement team and conclusions reached thereon
- Performed in the context of professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements
- NOT intended to be an evaluation of whether the entire engagement complies with professional standards or firm policies
Key Distinction:
- Engagement quality reviewer is NOT a member of the engagement team
- Performance of engagement quality review does NOT change the engagement partner's responsibilities for:
- Managing and achieving quality on the engagement
- Direction and supervision of engagement team members
- Review of their work
- Engagement quality reviewer is NOT required to obtain evidence to support the opinion or conclusion
- Engagement team may obtain further evidence in responding to matters raised during the review
1.4 Authority of HKSQM 2
Contains:
- Objective for the firm
- Requirements designed to enable the firm and engagement quality reviewer to meet the objective
- Application and other explanatory material (guidance)
- Introductory material providing context
- Definitions
1.5 Effective Date
| Engagement Type | Effective Date |
|---|---|
| ---------------- | ---------------- |
| Audits and reviews of financial statements | Periods beginning on or after 15 December 2022 |
| Other assurance and related services engagements | Engagements beginning on or after 15 December 2022 |
2. OBJECTIVE
Objective (Paragraph 12): The objective of the firm, through appointing an eligible engagement quality reviewer, is to perform an objective evaluation of the significant judgments made by the engagement team and the conclusions reached thereon.
3. DEFINITIONS
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| ------ | ------------ |
| Engagement quality review | An objective evaluation of the significant judgments made by the engagement team and the conclusions reached thereon, performed by the engagement quality reviewer and completed on or before the date of the engagement report |
| Engagement quality reviewer | A partner, other individual in the firm, or an external individual, appointed by the firm to perform the engagement quality review |
| Relevant ethical requirements | Principles of professional ethics and ethical requirements applicable to a professional accountant when undertaking the engagement quality review. Ordinarily comprises provisions of the HKICPA Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (the Code) related to audits or reviews of financial statements, or other assurance or related services engagements, together with local requirements that are more restrictive |
4. REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Applying and Complying with Relevant Requirements (Paragraphs 14-16)
Understanding Requirement:
- The firm and the engagement quality reviewer shall have an understanding of HKSQM 2, including application and other explanatory material
- Purpose: to understand the objective and properly apply relevant requirements
Compliance Requirement:
- The firm or engagement quality reviewer shall comply with each requirement
- Exception: unless the requirement is not relevant in the circumstances of the engagement
Sufficiency of Application:
- Proper application of requirements is expected to provide a sufficient basis for achieving the objective
- If the firm or engagement quality reviewer determines that application of relevant requirements does not provide a sufficient basis, they shall take further actions to achieve the objective
4.2 Appointment and Eligibility of Engagement Quality Reviewers (Paragraphs 17-23)
4.2.1 Assignment of Responsibility for Appointment (Paragraph 17)
Requirement:
The firm shall establish policies or procedures that:
- Require assignment of responsibility for appointment of engagement quality reviewers to an individual(s) with:
- Competence
- Capabilities
- Appropriate authority within the firm to fulfill the responsibility
- Require such individual(s) to appoint the engagement quality reviewer
Application Guidance (A1-A3):
- Relevant competence and capabilities may include knowledge about:
- Responsibilities of an engagement quality reviewer
- Eligibility criteria in paragraphs 18 and 19
- Nature and circumstances of the engagement or entity
- Composition of the engagement team
- In smaller firms or sole practitioners, it may not be practicable for an individual other than a member of the engagement team to appoint the engagement quality reviewer
- Firm may assign more than one individual to be responsible for appointment
4.2.2 Eligibility Criteria for Engagement Quality Reviewer (Paragraph 18)
Requirement:
The firm shall establish policies or procedures that set forth criteria for eligibility. The engagement quality reviewer:
- Shall not be a member of the engagement team
- Shall have competence and capabilities, including sufficient time, and appropriate authority
- Shall comply with relevant ethical requirements, including threats to objectivity and independence
- Shall comply with provisions of law and regulation relevant to eligibility
Application Guidance (A4):
- In smaller firms or sole practitioners, may contract with or obtain services of individuals external to the firm
- External individuals may be:
- Partner or employee of a network firm
- Structure or organization within the firm's network
- Service provider
- When using external individuals, provisions in HKSQM 1 addressing network requirements or network services or service providers apply
4.2.3 Competence and Capabilities (Paragraph 18(a) - Application Guidance A5-A8)
Matters to Consider:
- Understanding of professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements
- Understanding of the firm's policies or procedures relevant to the engagement
- Knowledge of the entity's industry
- Understanding of, and experience relevant to, engagements of similar nature and complexity
- Understanding of responsibilities of the engagement quality reviewer
Additional Considerations:
- Nature of the entity
- Specialization and complexity of the industry or regulatory environment
- Extent to which engagement relates to matters requiring specialized expertise (e.g., IT, specialized accounting/auditing areas, scientific/engineering expertise)
- Findings from the firm's monitoring activities (e.g., inspection results)
- Results of external inspections
Impact of Lack of Competence:
A lack of appropriate competence or capabilities affects the ability of the engagement quality reviewer to exercise appropriate professional judgment in performing the review.
4.2.4 Appropriate Authority (Paragraph 18(a) - Application Guidance A9-A11)
Establishing Authority:
- Actions at the firm level help establish authority
- Creating a culture of respect for the role of the engagement quality reviewer
- Firm's policies or procedures to address differences of opinion
Diminishment of Authority:
- Culture that promotes respect for authority only at higher hierarchy levels
- Engagement quality reviewer has reporting line to the engagement partner
- Engagement partner holds leadership position or determines compensation of engagement quality reviewer
Public Sector Considerations (A11):
- An auditor (e.g., Auditor General) may act in a role equivalent to engagement partner
- Selection of engagement quality reviewer may include consideration of:
- Need for independence
- Ability to provide objective evaluation
4.2.5 Relevant Ethical Requirements (Paragraph 13(c), 18(b) - Application Guidance A12-A15)
Nature of Requirements:
- May vary depending on nature and circumstances of the engagement or entity
- Various provisions may apply only to individual professional accountants, not the firm
- May include specific independence requirements
- May include provisions addressing threats to independence created by long association
Threats to Objectivity (A14):
| Type of Threat | Example |
|---|---|
| ---------------- | --------- |
| Self-review threat | Engagement quality reviewer previously involved with significant judgments as engagement partner or other team member |
| Familiarity or self-interest threat | Close or immediate family member of engagement partner or other team member; close personal relationships |
| Intimidation threat | Actual or perceived pressure (e.g., aggressive or dominant engagement partner; reporting line to engagement partner) |
Code Guidance (A15):
The Code provides specific guidance including:
- Circumstances where threats to objectivity may be created
- Factors relevant in evaluating the level of such threats
- Actions, including safeguards, that might address such threats
4.2.6 Cooling-Off Period (Paragraph 19)
Requirement:
The firm's policies or procedures shall address threats to objectivity created by an individual being appointed as engagement quality reviewer after previously serving as the engagement partner. Such policies or procedures shall specify a cooling-off period of:
- Two years, or
- Longer period if required by relevant ethical requirements
Application Guidance (A17-A18):
- In recurring engagements, significant judgments often do not vary
- Prior period judgments may continue to affect subsequent period judgments
- Cooling-off period is important to reduce threats to objectivity, particularly self-review threat
- Firm may also consider whether cooling-off period is appropriate for individuals other than the engagement partner (e.g., component audit partner becoming group engagement quality reviewer)
4.2.7 Individuals Assisting the Engagement Quality Reviewer (Paragraphs 20-21)
Eligibility Criteria for Assistants:
The firm shall establish policies or procedures requiring that individuals assisting the engagement quality reviewer:
- Shall not be members of the engagement team
- Shall have competence and capabilities, including sufficient time
- Shall comply with relevant ethical requirements
Overall Responsibility (Paragraph 21):
The firm shall establish policies or procedures that:
- Require the engagement quality reviewer to take overall responsibility for the performance of the engagement quality review
- Address the engagement quality reviewer's responsibility for determining:
- Nature, timing, and extent of direction and supervision of assistants
- Review of their work
Application Guidance (A19-A22):
- Assistants may be used when specialized expertise is needed (e.g., highly specialized knowledge, skills, or expertise)
- When assistant is external to the firm, responsibilities may be set out in contract or agreement
- Engagement quality reviewer's responsibilities may include:
- Considering whether assistants understand instructions
- Whether work is being carried out in accordance with planned approach
- Addressing matters raised by assistants
4.2.8 Impairment of Eligibility (Paragraphs 22-23)
Firm's Responsibilities (Paragraph 22):
The firm shall establish policies or procedures that address:
- Circumstances in which the engagement quality reviewer's eligibility is impaired
- Appropriate actions to be taken by the firm
- Process for identifying and appointing a replacement
Engagement Quality Reviewer's Responsibilities (Paragraph 23):
When the engagement quality reviewer becomes aware of circumstances that impair eligibility:
- Notify the appropriate individual(s) in the firm
- If review has not commenced: decline the appointment
- If review has commenced: discontinue performance
Application Guidance (A23-A24):
Factors relevant to impairment:
- Changes in circumstances resulting in loss of competence or capabilities
- Changes in other responsibilities indicating insufficient time
- Notification from engagement quality reviewer under paragraph 23
4.3 Performance of the Engagement Quality Review (Paragraphs 24-27)
4.3.1 Firm's Policies or Procedures (Paragraph 24)
The firm shall establish policies or procedures regarding:
- Engagement quality reviewer's responsibilities to perform procedures in accordance with paragraphs 25-26 at appropriate points in time during the engagement
- Engagement partner's responsibilities in relation to the engagement quality review, including:
- Engagement partner is precluded from dating the engagement report until notification from the engagement quality reviewer that the review is complete
- Circumstances when nature and extent of engagement team discussions with the engagement quality reviewer about a significant judgment give rise to a threat to objectivity, and appropriate actions to take
Application Guidance (A25-A27):
Engagement Partner Responsibilities (A25-A26):
HKSA 220 (Revised) establishes requirements including:
- Determining that an engagement quality reviewer has been appointed
- Cooperating with the engagement quality reviewer
- Informing other engagement team members of their responsibility to cooperate
- Discussing significant matters and significant judgments with the engagement quality reviewer
- Not dating the auditor's report until completion of the engagement quality review
HKSAE 3000 (Revised) also establishes requirements for assurance engagements other than audits or reviews of historical financial information.
Discussions Between Engagement Quality Reviewer and Engagement Team (A27):
- Frequent communication may facilitate effective and timely review
- However, threat to objectivity may be created depending on timing and extent of discussions
- Firm's policies may set out actions to avoid situations where the engagement quality reviewer is, or may be perceived to be, making decisions on behalf of the engagement team
- May require consultation about significant judgments with other relevant personnel
4.3.2 Procedures Performed by the Engagement Quality Reviewer (Paragraph 25)
The engagement quality reviewer shall perform the following procedures:
(a) Read and obtain understanding of information communicated by:
- The engagement team regarding the nature and circumstances of the engagement and the entity
- The firm related to the firm's monitoring and remediation process, in particular identified deficiencies that may relate to or affect areas involving significant judgments
(b) Discuss with the engagement partner and, if applicable, other members of the engagement team:
- Significant matters and significant judgments made in planning, performing, and reporting on the engagement
(c) Based on information obtained in (a) and (b), review selected engagement documentation relating to significant judgments and evaluate:
- The basis for making those significant judgments, including, when applicable, the exercise of professional skepticism
- Whether the engagement documentation supports the conclusions reached
- Whether the conclusions reached are appropriate
(d) For audits of financial statements, evaluate the basis for the engagement partner's determination that:
- Relevant ethical requirements relating to independence have been fulfilled
(e) Evaluate whether:
- Appropriate consultation has taken place on difficult or contentious matters or matters involving differences of opinion
- The conclusions arising from those consultations
(f) For audits of financial statements, evaluate the basis for the engagement partner's determination that:
- The engagement partner's involvement has been sufficient and appropriate throughout the audit engagement
- Such that the engagement partner has the basis for determining that the significant judgments made and the conclusions reached are appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the engagement
(g) Review:
- For audits of financial statements: the financial statements and the auditor's report thereon, including, if applicable, the description of key audit matters
- For review engagements: the financial statements or financial information and the engagement report thereon
- For other assurance and related services engagements: the engagement report, and when applicable, the subject matter information
4.3.3 Unresolved Concerns (Paragraph 26)
Requirement:
The engagement quality reviewer shall:
- Notify the engagement partner if the engagement quality reviewer has concerns that the significant judgments made by the engagement team, or the conclusions reached thereon, are not appropriate
- If such concerns are not resolved to the engagement quality reviewer's satisfaction, notify an appropriate individual(s) in the firm that the engagement quality review cannot be completed
Application Guidance (A49):
- Firm's policies may specify the individual(s) to be notified
- May include the individual assigned responsibility for appointment of engagement quality reviewers
- May also require consultation within or outside the firm (e.g., professional or regulatory body)
4.3.4 Completion of the Engagement Quality Review (Paragraph 27)
Requirement:
The engagement quality reviewer shall:
- Determine whether the requirements in HKSQM 2 with respect to performance of the engagement quality review have been fulfilled
- Determine whether the engagement quality review is complete
- If so, notify the engagement partner that the engagement quality review is complete
4.4 Documentation (Paragraphs 28-30)
4.4.1 Firm's Policies or Procedures (Paragraph 28)
The firm shall establish policies or procedures that:
- Require the engagement quality reviewer to take responsibility for documentation of the engagement quality review
- Require documentation of the engagement quality review in accordance with paragraph 30
- Require that such documentation be included with the engagement documentation
4.4.2 Content of Documentation (Paragraph 30)
The engagement quality reviewer shall determine that documentation is sufficient to enable an experienced practitioner, having no previous connection with the engagement, to understand:
- The nature, timing, and extent of procedures performed
- The conclusions reached in performing the review
Minimum Documentation Requirements:
The documentation shall include:
- The names of the engagement quality reviewer and individuals who assisted
- An identification of the engagement documentation reviewed
- The basis for the engagement quality reviewer's determination in accordance with paragraph 27
- The notifications required in accordance with paragraphs 26 and 27
- The date of completion of the engagement quality review
Application Guidance (A50-A53):
Relationship to HKSQM 1:
- Paragraphs 57-60 of HKSQM 1 address the firm's documentation of its system of quality management
- An engagement quality review performed in accordance with HKSQM 2 is subject to the documentation requirements in HKSQM 1
Factors Affecting Documentation:
- Nature and complexity of the engagement
- Nature of the entity
- Nature and complexity of matters subject to the review
- Extent of engagement documentation reviewed
Methods of Documentation:
- Electronically in the IT application for performance of the engagement
- Through a memorandum
- In minutes of engagement team discussions where the engagement quality reviewer was present
Timing:
- Documentation may be finalized after the date of the engagement report but before assembly of the final engagement file
- However, firm policies may specify that documentation needs to be finalized on or before the date of the engagement report
5. CONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
As of April 2021, HKSQM 2 conforms with International Standard on Quality Management (ISQM) 2, Engagement Quality Reviews, except that references to the International Ethics Board for Accountants' International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (Including International Independence Standards) are replaced by the HKICPA's Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants.
Compliance with HKSQM 2 ensures compliance with ISQM 2 (with the foregoing exception).
6. KEY APPLICATION GUIDANCE SUMMARY
6.1 Group Audit Considerations (A32-A33)
- Additional considerations for group audit engagement quality reviewer
- May need to discuss significant matters and significant judgments with key members of the engagement team other than the group engagement team
- May be assisted by individuals in accordance with paragraph 20
- Communication between group engagement quality reviewer and component engagement quality reviewer may be helpful
6.2 Significant Matters and Significant Judgments (A35-A43)
For Audits of Financial Statements:
- HKSA 220 (Revised) requires engagement partner to review audit documentation relating to significant matters and significant judgments
- Examples of significant judgments related to overall audit strategy, execution, and overall conclusions
For Other Engagements:
- Significant judgments depend on nature and circumstances of the engagement or entity
- Example: determination of whether criteria are suitable for the engagement
Engagement Quality Reviewer's Evaluation:
- Remaining alert to changes in nature and circumstances
- Applying an unbiased view
- Following up on inconsistencies
6.3 Professional Skepticism (A41-A43)
- Discussions about significant judgments may assist in evaluating exercise of professional skepticism
- HKSA 220 (Revised) provides examples of impediments to professional skepticism
- HKSA 315 (Revised 2019), HKSA 540 (Revised), and other HKSAs provide examples of areas where professional skepticism is exercised
6.4 Independence (A44)
- HKSA 220 (Revised) requires engagement partner, prior to dating the auditor's report, to take responsibility for determining whether relevant ethical requirements, including independence, have been fulfilled
6.5 Consultation (A45)
- HKSQM 1 addresses consultation on difficult or contentious matters and differences of opinion
6.6 Engagement Partner Involvement (A46)
- HKSA 220 (Revised) requires engagement partner to determine that involvement has been sufficient and appropriate
- Documentation of involvement may be accomplished in different ways
6.7 Review of Financial Statements and Engagement Reports (A47-A48)
- May include consideration of whether presentation and disclosure are consistent with understanding
- May become aware of other areas where significant judgments would have been expected
7. KEY TAKEAWAYS SUMMARY TABLE
| Area | Key Requirement |
|---|---|
| ------ | ---------------- |
| Objective | Objective evaluation of significant judgments and conclusions |
| Appointment | Assigned to individual(s) with competence, capabilities, and authority |
| Eligibility | Not a member of engagement team; competence, capabilities, time, authority; ethical requirements; law/regulation |
| Cooling-off Period | 2 years (or longer if required) after serving as engagement partner |
| Assistants | Not engagement team members; competence, capabilities, time; ethical requirements |
| Overall Responsibility | Engagement quality reviewer takes overall responsibility |
| Impairment | Notify firm; decline or discontinue |
| Procedures | Read information; discuss significant matters; review documentation; evaluate independence (audits); evaluate consultation; evaluate partner involvement; review reports |
| Unresolved Concerns | Notify partner; if unresolved, notify appropriate individual(s) |
| Completion | Determine requirements fulfilled; notify partner |
| Documentation | Sufficient for experienced practitioner; names, documentation identified, basis, notifications, date |
# ---
# 繁體中文部分
香港質量管理準則第2號 - 項目質量審閱
1. 引言
1.1 範圍
HKSQM 2 涵蓋兩個主要範疇：
- 委任及資格 項目質量審閱人員
- 責任 項目質量審閱人員有關執行及記錄項目質量審閱的責任
主要範圍條文：
- 適用於所有根據HKSQM 1規定需要進行項目質量審閱的項目
- 前提是事務所受HKSQM 1或至少同樣嚴格的當地規定所規管
- 必須連同相關道德要求一併閱讀
- 項目質量審閱是事務所根據HKSQM 1設計及實施的指定應對措施
- 由項目質量審閱人員代表事務所在項目層面執行
1.2 可擴展性
程序的性质、時間及範圍因應以下因素而變化：
- 項目或實體的性質及情況
- 例如：涉及較少重大判斷的項目，程序可能較不廣泛
1.3 事務所質量管理體系及項目質量審閱的角色
HKSQM 1 基礎：
- 確立事務所對其質量管理體系的責任
- 要求事務所設計及實施應對措施以處理質量風險
- 指定應對措施包括根據HKSQM 2制定有關項目質量審閱的政策或程序
事務所根據HKSQM 1的目標：
事務所的目標是設計、實施及運作質量管理體系，以提供合理保證：
(a) 事務所及其人員按照專業準則及適用的法律法規履行責任，並按照該等準則及規定進行項目；及
(b) 事務所或項目合夥人發出的項目報告在當時情況下是恰當的。
項目質量審閱的性質：
- 對項目團隊作出的重大判斷及達致的結論進行客觀評價
- 在專業準則及適用的法律法規的背景下進行
- 並非旨在評價整個項目是否符合專業準則或事務所政策
關鍵區別：
- 項目質量審閱人員並非項目團隊成員
- 執行項目質量審閱不會改變項目合夥人的責任：
- 管理及達致項目質量
- 指導及監督項目團隊成員
- 審閱他們的工作
- 項目質量審閱人員無需獲取證據以支持項目的意見或結論
- 項目團隊可能在回應項目質量審閱期間提出的事項時獲取進一步證據
1.4 HKSQM 2 的權威性
包含：
- 事務所的目標
- 旨在使事務所及項目質量審閱人員能夠達到目標的規定
- 應用及其他解釋性材料（指引）
- 提供背景的引言材料
- 定義
1.5 生效日期
| 項目類型 | 生效日期 |
|---|---|
| --------- | --------- |
| 財務報表的審計及審閱 | 2022年12月15日或之後開始的期間 |
| 其他保證及相關服務項目 | 2022年12月15日或之後開始的項目 |
2. 目標
目標（第12段）： 事務所通過委任合資格的項目質量審閱人員，對項目團隊作出的重大判斷及達致的結論進行客觀評價。
3. 定義
| 術語 | 定義 |
|---|---|
| ------ | ------ |
| 項目質量審閱 | 由項目質量審閱人員執行並在項目報告日期或之前完成的，對項目團隊作出的重大判斷及達致的結論進行的客觀評價 |
| 項目質量審閱人員 | 由事務所委任執行項目質量審閱的合夥人、事務所內其他個人或外部個人 |
| 相關道德要求 | 專業會計師在進行項目質量審閱時適用的職業道德原則及道德要求。通常包括香港會計師公會《專業會計師道德守則》中有關審計或審閱財務報表或其他保證或相關服務項目的條文，以及更嚴格的當地規定 |
4. 規定
4.1 應用及遵守相關規定（第14-16段）
理解規定：
- 事務所及項目質量審閱人員須理解HKSQM 2，包括應用及其他解釋性材料
- 目的：理解目標並適當應用相關規定
遵守規定：
- 事務所或項目質量審閱人員須遵守每項規定
- 例外：除非該規定在項目的情況下不相關
應用的充分性：
- 適當應用規定預期可為達致目標提供充分基礎
- 如事務所或項目質量審閱人員確定應用相關規定未能提供充分基礎，則須採取進一步行動以達致目標
4.2 項目質量審閱人員的委任及資格（第17-23段）
4.2.1 委任責任的分配（第17段）
規定：
事務所須制定政策或程序：
- 要求將委任項目質量審閱人員的責任分配給具備以下條件的個人：
- 勝任能力
- 能力
- 事務所內的適當權力以履行責任
- 要求該等個人委任項目質量審閱人員
應用指引（A1-A3）：
- 相關勝任能力及能力可能包括對以下方面的了解：
- 項目質量審閱人員的責任
- 第18及19段有關資格標準
- 項目或實體的性質及情況
- 項目團隊的組成
- 在較小事務所或獨自執業者中，可能無法由項目團隊成員以外的個人委任項目質量審閱人員
- 事務所可分配多於一名個人負責委任
4.2.2 項目質量審閱人員的資格標準（第18段）
規定：
事務所須制定政策或程序訂明資格標準。項目質量審閱人員：
- 不得為項目團隊成員
- 須具備勝任能力及能力，包括足夠時間及適當權力
- 須遵守相關道德要求，包括有關客觀性及獨立性的威脅
- 須遵守與資格相關的法律法規規定
應用指引（A4）：
- 在較小事務所或獨自執業者中，可與事務所外部個人訂約或獲取其服務
- 外部個人可以是：
- 網絡事務所的合夥人或僱員
- 事務所網絡內的結構或組織
- 服務提供者
- 使用外部個人時，適用HKSQM 1中有關網絡規定或網絡服務或服務提供者的條文
4.2.3 勝任能力及能力（第18(a)段 - 應用指引A5-A8）
需考慮的事項：
- 理解專業準則及適用的法律法規
- 理解事務所與項目相關的政策或程序
- 了解實體的行業
- 理解及擁有類似性質及複雜程度項目的相關經驗
- 理解項目質量審閱人員的責任
其他考慮因素：
- 實體的性質
- 行業或監管環境的專業化及複雜程度
- 項目涉及需要專業知識的程度（例如：資訊科技、專業會計/審計領域、科學/工程專業知識）
- 事務所監控活動的結果（例如：檢查結果）
- 外部檢查的結果
缺乏勝任能力的影響：
缺乏適當勝任能力或能力會影響項目質量審閱人員在執行審閱時運用適當專業判斷的能力。
4.2.4 適當權力（第18(a)段 - 應用指引A9-A11）
建立權力：
- 事務所層面的行動有助建立權力
- 建立尊重項目質量審閱人員角色的文化
- 事務所處理意見分歧的政策或程序
權力減弱：
- 僅尊重較高層級權力的文化
- 項目質量審閱人員向項目合夥人匯報
- 項目合夥人擔任領導職位或決定項目質量審閱人員的薪酬
公營部門考慮因素（A11）：
- 審計師（例如：審計署署長）可能擔任相當於項目合夥人的角色
- 選擇項目質量審閱人員時可能需考慮：
- 獨立性的需要
- 提供客觀評價的能力
4.2.5 相關道德要求（第13(c)段、第18(b)段 - 應用指引A12-A15）
要求的性質：
- 可能因項目或實體的性質及情況而異
- 各種條文可能僅適用於個別專業會計師，而非事務所
- 可能包括特定的獨立性要求
- 可能包括處理長期關聯所產生的獨立性威脅的條文
對客觀性的威脅（A14）：
| 威脅類型 | 例子 |
|---|---|
| --------- | ------ |
| 自我審閱威脅 | 項目質量審閱人員先前曾以項目合夥人或其他團隊成員身份參與重大判斷 |
| 親密或自身利益威脅 | 與項目合夥人或其他團隊成員有近親或直系親屬關係；密切的個人關係 |
| 恐嚇威脅 | 實際或感知的壓力（例如：進取或主導的項目合夥人；向項目合夥人匯報） |
守則指引（A15）：
守則提供具體指引，包括：
- 可能產生客觀性威脅的情況
- 評估該等威脅水平的相關因素
- 可能處理該等威脅的行動，包括防範措施
4.2.6 冷卻期（第19段）
規定：
事務所的政策或程序須處理個人先前擔任項目合夥人後被委任為項目質量審閱人員所產生的客觀性威脅。該等政策或程序須規定冷卻期為：
- 兩年，或
- 如相關道德要求規定更長期間，則為更長期間
應用指引（A17-A18）：
- 在連續項目中，重大判斷通常不會變化
- 前期判斷可能繼續影響後期判斷
- 冷卻期對降低客觀性威脅（特別是自我審閱威脅）至可接受水平至關重要
- 事務所亦可考慮冷卻期是否適用於項目合夥人以外的個人（例如：組成部分審計合夥人成為集團項目質量審閱人員）
4.2.7 協助項目質量審閱人員的個人（第20-21段）
助理的資格標準：
事務所須制定政策或程序，要求協助項目質量審閱人員的個人：
- 不得為項目團隊成員
- 須具備勝任能力及能力，包括足夠時間
- 須遵守相關道德要求
整體責任（第21段）：
事務所須制定政策或程序：
- 要求項目質量審閱人員對項目質量審閱的執行承擔整體責任
- 處理項目質量審閱人員在確定以下事項方面的責任：
- 指導及監督助理的性質、時間及範圍
- 審閱他們的工作
應用指引（A19-A22）：
- 在需要專業知識時可使用助理（例如：高度專業的知識、技能或專業知識）
- 當助理為事務所外部個人時，責任可在合約或協議中訂明
- 項目質量審閱人員的責任可能包括：
- 考慮助理是否理解指示
- 工作是否按照計劃方法進行
- 處理助理提出的事項
4.2.8 資格受損（第22-23段）
事務所的責任（第22段）：
事務所須制定政策或程序處理：
- 項目質量審閱人員資格受損的情況
- 事務所應採取的適當行動
- 識別及委任替代人員的程序
項目質量審閱人員的責任（第23段）：
當項目質量審閱人員知悉損害資格的情況時：
- 通知事務所內的適當個人
- 如審閱尚未開始：拒絕委任
- 如審閱已開始：停止執行
應用指引（A23-A24）：
與受損相關的因素：
- 情況變化導致失去勝任能力或能力
- 其他責任變化顯示時間不足
- 項目質量審閱人員根據第23段發出的通知
4.3 項目質量審閱的執行（第24-27段）
4.3.1 事務所的政策或程序（第24段）
事務所須制定政策或程序處理：
- 項目質量審閱人員的責任，按照第25-26段在項目期間的適當時間點執行程序
- 項目合夥人的責任，包括：
- 項目合夥人不得簽署項目報告日期，直至收到項目質量審閱人員通知審閱已完成
- 情況：當項目團隊與項目質量審閱人員就重大判斷進行討論的性質及程度產生客觀性威脅時，以及應採取的適當行動
應用指引（A25-A27）：
項目合夥人責任（A25-A26）：
HKSA 220（經修訂）訂明的規定包括：
- 確定已委任項目質量審閱人員
- 與項目質量審閱人員合作
- 通知其他項目團隊成員他們的合作責任
- 與項目質量審閱人員討論重大事項及重大判斷
- 在項目質量審閱完成前不得簽署審計報告日期
HKSAE 3000（經修訂）亦為審計或審閱歷史財務信息以外的保證項目訂明規定。
項目質量審閱人員與項目團隊之間的討論（A27）：
- 頻繁溝通可能有助促進有效及及時的審閱
- 然而，取決於討論的時間及程度，可能產生客觀性威脅
- 事務所政策可訂明行動，以避免項目質量審閱人員正在或可能被視為代表項目團隊作出決策的情況
- 可能需要就重大判斷諮詢其他相關人員
4.3.2 項目質量審閱人員執行的程序（第25段）
項目質量審閱人員須執行以下程序：
(a) 閱讀及理解由以下各方傳達的信息：
- 項目團隊有關項目及實體的性質及情況
- 事務所有關事務所的監控及補救程序，特別是可能與或影響涉及重大判斷的領域相關的已識別缺陷
(b) 與項目合夥人及（如適用）其他項目團隊成員討論：
- 在規劃、執行及報告項目時作出的重大事項及重大判斷
(c) 基於在(a)及(b)中獲得的信息，審閱與重大判斷相關的選定項目文件並評價：
- 作出該等重大判斷的基礎，包括（如適用於項目類型）項目團隊運用專業懷疑態度
- 項目文件是否支持達致的結論
- 達致的結論是否適當
(d) 對於財務報表審計，評價項目合夥人確定的基礎：
- 與獨立性相關的相關道德要求已獲滿足
(e) 評價是否：
- 已就困難或有爭議的事項或涉及意見分歧的事項進行適當諮詢
- 該等諮詢產生的結論
(f) 對於財務報表審計，評價項目合夥人確定的基礎：
- 項目合夥人的參與在整個審計項目中已足夠及適當
- 以使項目合夥人有基礎確定作出的重大判斷及達致的結論在項目的性質及情況下是適當的
(g) 審閱：
- 對於財務報表審計：財務報表及審計報告，包括（如適用）關鍵審計事項的描述
- 對於審閱項目：財務報表或財務信息及項目報告
- 對於其他保證及相關服務項目：項目報告，及（如適用）主題信息
4.3.3 未解決的關注事項（第26段）
規定：
項目質量審閱人員須：
- 通知項目合夥人，如項目質量審閱人員關注到項目團隊作出的重大判斷或達致的結論不適當
- 如該等關注事項未能令項目質量審閱人員滿意地解決，通知事務所內的適當個人項目質量審閱無法完成
應用指引（A49）：
- 事務所政策可指定須通知的個人
- 可能包括獲分配委任項目質量審閱人員責任的個人
- 亦可能要求在事務所內部或外部進行諮詢（例如：專業或監管機構）
4.3.4 項目質量審閱的完成（第27段）
規定：
項目質量審閱人員須：
- 確定HKSQM 2中有關項目質量審閱執行的規定是否已履行
- 確定項目質量審閱是否完成
- 如是，通知項目合夥人項目質量審閱已完成
4.4 文件記錄（第28-30段）
4.4.1 事務所的政策或程序（第28段）
事務所須制定政策或程序：
- 要求項目質量審閱人員對項目質量審閱的文件記錄承擔責任
- 要求按照第30段記錄項目質量審閱
- 要求該等文件記錄納入項目文件
4.4.2 文件記錄的內容（第30段）
項目質量審閱人員須確定文件記錄足以使經驗豐富的從業員（與項目無先前聯繫）理解：
- 所執行程序的性質、時間及範圍
- 執行審閱時達致的結論
最低文件記錄要求：
文件記錄須包括：
- 項目質量審閱人員及協助審閱的個人的姓名
- 已審閱的項目文件的識別
- 項目質量審閱人員根據第27段確定的基礎
- 根據第26及27段要求的通知
- 項目質量審閱完成的日期
應用指引（A50-A53）：
與HKSQM 1的關係：
- HKSQM 1第57-60段處理事務所對其質量管理體系的文件記錄
- 根據HKSQM 2執行的項目質量審閱受HKSQM 1中的文件記錄規定所規限
影響文件記錄的因素：
- 項目的性質及複雜程度
- 實體的性質
- 審閱事項的性質及複雜程度
- 已審閱的項目文件範圍
文件記錄的方法：
- 在執行項目的資訊科技應用程式中以電子方式記錄
- 通過備忘錄記錄
- 在項目質量審閱人員出席的項目團隊討論記錄中記錄
時間：
- 文件記錄可在項目報告日期之後但在最終項目檔案組成之前完成
- 然而，事務所政策可規定文件記錄須在項目報告日期或之前完成
5. 與國際準則的一致性
截至2021年4月，HKSQM 2與國際質量管理準則第2號（ISQM 2）《項目質量審閱》一致，惟對國際會計師職業道德準則理事會的《國際專業會計師職業道德守則》（包括國際獨立性標準）的引用已替換為香港會計師公會的《專業會計師道德守則》。
遵守HKSQM 2即確保遵守ISQM 2（除上述差異外）。
6. 關鍵應用指引摘要
6.1 集團審計考慮因素（A32-A33）
- 集團審計項目質量審閱人員需考慮額外因素
- 可能需要與集團項目團隊以外的關鍵項目團隊成員討論重大事項及重大判斷
- 可根據第20段由個人協助
- 集團項目質量審閱人員與組成部分項目質量審閱人員之間的溝通可能有幫助
6.2 重大事項及重大判斷（A35-A43）
對於財務報表審計：
- HKSA 220（經修訂）要求項目合夥人審閱與重大事項及重大判斷相關的審計文件
- 與整體審計策略、執行及整體結論相關的重大判斷示例
對於其他項目：
- 重大判斷取決於項目或實體的性質及情況
- 示例：確定標準是否適合項目
項目質量審閱人員的評價：
- 保持警覺注意性質及情況的變化
- 應用無偏見的觀點
- 跟進不一致之處
6.3 專業懷疑態度（A41-A43）
- 關於重大判斷的討論可能有助於評價專業懷疑態度的運用
- HKSA 220（經修訂）提供妨礙專業懷疑態度的示例
- HKSA 315（經修訂2019年）、HKSA 540（經修訂）及其他HKSA提供運用專業懷疑態度的領域示例
6.4 獨立性（A44）
- HKSA 220（經修訂）要求項目合夥人在簽署審計報告日期前，負責確定相關道德要求（包括獨立性）已獲滿足
6.5 諮詢（A45）
- HKSQM 1處理有關困難或有爭議事項及意見分歧的諮詢
6.6 項目合夥人參與（A46）
- HKSA 220（經修訂）要求項目合夥人確定參與已足夠及適當
- 參與的文件記錄可通過不同方式完成
6.7 審閱財務報表及項目報告（A47-A48）
- 可能包括考慮呈列及披露是否與理解一致
- 可能注意到預期會作出重大判斷的其他領域
7. 關鍵要點摘要表
| 領域 | 關鍵規定 |
|---|---|
| ------ | --------- |
| 目標 | 對重大判斷及結論進行客觀評價 |
| 委任 | 分配給具備勝任能力、能力及權力的個人 |
| 資格 | 非項目團隊成員；勝任能力、能力、時間、權力；道德要求；法律法規 |
| 冷卻期 | 擔任項目合夥人後2年（或更長，如要求） |
| 助理 | 非項目團隊成員；勝任能力、能力、時間；道德要求 |
| 整體責任 | 項目質量審閱人員承擔整體責任 |
| 資格受損 | 通知事務所；拒絕或停止 |
| 程序 | 閱讀信息；討論重大事項；審閱文件；評價獨立性（審計）；評價諮詢；評價合夥人參與；審閱報告 |
| 未解決關注事項 | 通知合夥人；如未解決，通知適當個人 |
| 完成 | 確定規定已履行；通知合夥人 |
| 文件記錄 | 足以使經驗豐富從業員理解；姓名、文件識別、基礎、通知、日期 |
50 Multiple Choice Questions
Q1. What is the primary objective of HKSQM 2?
A. To establish requirements for the firm's system of quality management
B. To perform an objective evaluation of the significant judgments made by the engagement team and the conclusions reached thereon
C. To replace the engagement partner's responsibilities
D. To evaluate whether the entire engagement complies with professional standards
Answer: B
Q2. When is HKSQM 2 effective for audits and reviews of financial statements?
A. Periods beginning on or after 15 December 2021
B. Periods beginning on or after 15 December 2022
C. Periods ending on or after 15 December 2022
D. Periods beginning on or after 1 January 2023
Answer: B
Q3. Which of the following best describes an engagement quality review?
A. A detailed re-performance of all audit procedures
B. An objective evaluation of significant judgments made by the engagement team and conclusions reached thereon
C. A review of the entire engagement for compliance with all professional standards
D. A second audit of the financial statements
Answer: B
Q4. The engagement quality reviewer is:
A. A member of the engagement team
B. Required to obtain evidence to support the opinion on the engagement
C. Not a member of the engagement team
D. Responsible for managing and achieving quality on the engagement
Answer: C
Q5. Which of the following is NOT a requirement for eligibility as an engagement quality reviewer?
A. Not be a member of the engagement team
B. Have competence and capabilities, including sufficient time
C. Be a partner in the firm
D. Comply with relevant ethical requirements
Answer: C
Q6. The cooling-off period required before an engagement partner can become the engagement quality reviewer is:
A. One year
B. Two years
C. Three years
D. Five years
Answer: B
Q7. If the engagement quality reviewer's eligibility becomes impaired after the review has commenced, the reviewer shall:
A. Continue the review and note the impairment in documentation
B. Discontinue the performance of the engagement quality review
C. Seek guidance from the engagement partner
D. Complete the review and report the impairment later
Answer: B
Q8. According to HKSQM 2, the engagement partner is precluded from dating the engagement report until:
A. The audit is complete
B. The financial statements are approved
C. Notification has been received from the engagement quality reviewer that the review is complete
D. All review notes are resolved
Answer: C
Q9. Which of the following is NOT a procedure required to be performed by the engagement quality reviewer under paragraph 25?
A. Read information communicated by the engagement team
B. Re-perform all audit procedures
C. Discuss significant matters with the engagement partner
D. Review selected engagement documentation
Answer: B
Q10. For audits of financial statements, the engagement quality reviewer shall evaluate the basis for the engagement partner's determination that:
A. The audit fee is appropriate
B. Relevant ethical requirements relating to independence have been fulfilled
C. The engagement team has sufficient staff
D. The client's management is cooperative
Answer: B
Q11. The documentation of the engagement quality review shall be sufficient to enable which of the following to understand the procedures performed?
A. The engagement partner
B. The client's audit committee
C. An experienced practitioner having no previous connection with the engagement
D. A trainee accountant
Answer: C
Q12. Which of the following must be included in the documentation of the engagement quality review?
A. The audit strategy
B. The names of the engagement quality reviewer and individuals who assisted
C. The engagement letter
D. The management representation letter
Answer: B
Q13. The engagement quality reviewer's evaluation of significant judgments is performed in the context of:
A. Only the firm's policies or procedures
B. Professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements
C. Only the engagement team's preferences
D. Only the client's expectations
Answer: B
Q14. Which of the following is true regarding the engagement quality reviewer's authority?
A. It is automatically granted by law
B. It may be diminished when the reviewer has a reporting line to the engagement partner
C. It is always equal to that of the engagement partner
D. It cannot be enhanced by firm policies
Answer: B
Q15. For audits of financial statements, the engagement quality reviewer shall review:
A. Only the financial statements
B. Only the auditor's report
C. The financial statements and the auditor's report thereon
D. The engagement letter only
Answer: C
Q16. When the engagement quality reviewer has unresolved concerns about significant judgments, the reviewer shall:
A. Complete the review and note the concerns
B. Notify the engagement partner and, if unresolved, notify an appropriate individual in the firm
C. Override the engagement team's judgment
D. Withdraw from the engagement immediately
Answer: B
Q17. The firm's policies or procedures regarding the appointment of engagement quality reviewers shall assign responsibility to:
A. The engagement partner
B. An individual(s) with competence, capabilities, and appropriate authority
C. The audit committee
D. Any member of the engagement team
Answer: B
Q18. Which of the following is an example of a self-review threat to the engagement quality reviewer's objectivity?
A. Close personal relationship with the engagement partner
B. Previous involvement with significant judgments as the engagement partner
C. Pressure from the engagement partner
D. Financial interest in the client
Answer: B
Q19. The engagement quality reviewer shall determine that the engagement quality review is complete and then:
A. Sign the auditor's report
B. Notify the engagement partner
C. Notify the audit committee
D. Prepare the final engagement file
Answer: B
Q20. Which of the following is NOT a factor affecting the nature, timing, and extent of the engagement quality reviewer's procedures?
A. The complexity of the engagement
B. The nature and size of the entity
C. The engagement quality reviewer's personal preferences
D. Identified deficiencies from the firm's monitoring process
Answer: C
Q21. The engagement quality reviewer shall evaluate whether appropriate consultation has taken place on:
A. All audit matters
B. Difficult or contentious matters or matters involving differences of opinion
C. Only independence matters
D. Only fee-related matters
Answer: B
Q22. For audits of financial statements, the engagement quality reviewer shall evaluate the basis for the engagement partner's determination that the partner's involvement has been:
A. Minimal and limited
B. Sufficient and appropriate throughout the audit engagement
C. Focused only on planning
D. Delegated to other team members
Answer: B
Q23. Which of the following is true regarding individuals who assist the engagement quality reviewer?
A. They may be members of the engagement team
B. They shall not be members of the engagement team
C. They need not comply with ethical requirements
D. They take overall responsibility for the review
Answer: B
Q24. The engagement quality reviewer takes overall responsibility for:
A. The entire audit engagement
B. The performance of the engagement quality review
C. The financial statements
D. The engagement team's work
Answer: B
Q25. The firm's policies or procedures shall address circumstances in which the engagement quality reviewer's eligibility is impaired, including:
A. The process for identifying and appointing a replacement
B. The engagement partner's right to override the impairment
C. The client's right to waive the impairment
D. Automatic extension of the review period
Answer: A
Q26. Which of the following is NOT included in the definition of "relevant ethical requirements"?
A. HKICPA Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants
B. Local requirements that are more restrictive
C. The firm's internal policies on ethics
D. Provisions related to audits or reviews of financial statements
Answer: C
Q27. The engagement quality review must be completed:
A. Before the engagement team begins work
B. On or before the date of the engagement report
C. Within one month of the engagement report date
D. Before the engagement partner signs the engagement letter
Answer: B
Q28. Which of the following best describes the scalability concept in HKSQM 2?
A. All engagements require the same level of review
B. The nature, timing, and extent of procedures vary depending on the nature and circumstances of the engagement
C. Only listed entities require engagement quality reviews
D. The review procedures are fixed and cannot be modified
Answer: B
Q29. The engagement quality reviewer's procedures would likely be less extensive for:
A. Engagements involving many significant judgments
B. Engagements involving fewer significant judgments
C. Listed entity audits
D. Complex group audits
Answer: B
Q30. Which of the following is true regarding the relationship between HKSQM 2 and HKSQM 1?
A. HKSQM 2 replaces HKSQM 1
B. HKSQM 2 is independent of HKSQM 1
C. HKSQM 2 is a specified response designed and implemented by the firm in accordance with HKSQM 1
D. HKSQM 1 is a subset of HKSQM 2
Answer: C
Q31. The engagement quality reviewer shall read and obtain an understanding of information communicated by the firm related to:
A. The firm's marketing strategy
B. The firm's monitoring and remediation process
C. The firm's fee structure
D. The firm's hiring policies
Answer: B
Q32. For review engagements, the engagement quality reviewer shall review:
A. Only the engagement report
B. The financial statements or financial information and the engagement report thereon
C. Only the financial statements
D. The management representation letter
Answer: B
Q33. Which of the following is an example of an intimidation threat to the engagement quality reviewer's objectivity?
A. Previous involvement as engagement partner
B. Close family relationship with the engagement partner
C. Actual or perceived pressure from an aggressive engagement partner
D. Self-interest in the client
Answer: C
Q34. The documentation of the engagement quality review shall be:
A. Kept separate from the engagement documentation
B. Included with the engagement documentation
C. Destroyed after the engagement report is issued
D. Sent to the client
Answer: B
Q35. Which of the following must be included in the documentation of the engagement quality review?
A. The engagement quality reviewer's personal notes
B. The date of completion of the engagement quality review
C. The client's internal control documentation
D. The engagement team's working papers
Answer: B
Q36. In a smaller firm or sole practitioner situation, the engagement quality reviewer may be:
A. The engagement partner
B. An individual external to the firm
C. Any member of the engagement team
D. The client's internal auditor
Answer: B
Q37. The engagement quality reviewer's evaluation of the exercise of professional skepticism by the engagement team is performed when:
A. Always required
B. Applicable to the type of engagement
C. Only for listed entities
D. Only when requested by the engagement partner
Answer: B
Q38. Which of the following is NOT a required element of the engagement quality reviewer's procedures?
A. Discussing significant matters with the engagement team
B. Reviewing selected engagement documentation
C. Re-performing all audit tests
D. Evaluating whether appropriate consultation has taken place
Answer: C
Q39. The firm's policies or procedures regarding the engagement quality review shall address:
A. The engagement quality reviewer's compensation
B. Circumstances when discussions give rise to a threat to objectivity
C. The client's right to select the reviewer
D. The engagement team's right to reject the reviewer
Answer: B
Q40. For other assurance and related services engagements, the engagement quality reviewer shall review:
A. Only the engagement report
B. The engagement report, and when applicable, the subject matter information
C. Only the subject matter information
D. The engagement letter
Answer: B
Q41. The cooling-off period requirement in paragraph 19 is designed to address which type of threat?
A. Intimidation threat
B. Self-review threat
C. Familiarity threat
D. Advocacy threat
Answer: B
Q42. Which of the following is true regarding the engagement quality reviewer's responsibility for documentation?
A. The engagement partner takes responsibility for documentation
B. The engagement quality reviewer takes responsibility for documentation
C. The firm's quality control department takes responsibility
D. The client takes responsibility
Answer: B
Q43. The engagement quality reviewer shall notify the engagement partner if the reviewer has concerns that:
A. The audit fee is too low
B. The significant judgments made or conclusions reached are not appropriate
C. The engagement team is working too slowly
D. The client is uncooperative
Answer: B
Q44. Which of the following is NOT a factor that may diminish the engagement quality reviewer's authority?
A. Culture that promotes respect for authority only at higher hierarchy levels
B. Reporting line to the engagement partner
C. Engagement partner holding a leadership position
D. Clear firm policies supporting the reviewer's role
Answer: D
Q45. The engagement quality reviewer's procedures shall be performed:
A. Only at the end of the engagement
B. At appropriate points in time during the engagement
C. Only during planning
D. Only after the engagement report is issued
Answer: B
Q46. Which of the following is true regarding the engagement quality reviewer's role in group audits?
A. The reviewer only communicates with the group engagement team
B. The reviewer may need to discuss significant matters with key members of the engagement team other than the group engagement team
C. The reviewer cannot use assistants
D. The reviewer must be from the same component as the group engagement team
Answer: B
Q47. The documentation of the engagement quality review may be finalized:
A. Only before the engagement report date
B. After the date of the engagement report but before assembly of the final engagement file
C. Only after the final engagement file is assembled
D. Within one year of the engagement report date
Answer: B
Q48. Which of the following is NOT a required element of the engagement quality review documentation?
A. The names of the engagement quality reviewer and assistants
B. An identification of the engagement documentation reviewed
C. The engagement quality reviewer's personal opinions
D. The notifications required under paragraphs 26 and 27
Answer: C
Q49. The engagement quality reviewer shall evaluate the basis for the engagement partner's determination that relevant ethical requirements relating to independence have been fulfilled for:
A. All engagements
B. Audits of financial statements only
C. Review engagements only
D. Other assurance engagements only
Answer: B
Q50. Which of the following best describes the relationship between the engagement quality review and the engagement partner's responsibilities?
A. The engagement quality review replaces the engagement partner's responsibilities
B. The engagement quality review does not change the engagement partner's responsibilities
C. The engagement quality review reduces the engagement partner's responsibilities
D. The engagement quality review eliminates the need for the engagement partner
Answer: B
❓ Ready to Test Your Knowledge?
50 MCQs covering all sections. Timed at 1.25 min each (62.5 min total).
📝 Start Q&A →🖨️ Save as PDF