Why does the rule require an individual who possesses suitable skill, knowledge, and/or experience to oversee the nonattest services provided by the member?
If the individual designated by the client does not possess suitable skill, knowledge, and/or experience to oversee the nonattest service, there would be no one (other than the member) to make the significant judgments that become necessary during the delivery of the service or discharge the other client responsibilities under Interpretation No. 101-3. Performing those activities on behalf of the attest client would be inconsistent with the member’s requirement to be independent of the client. 4. What are the underlying concepts that support the conclusion that a member’s independence would be impaired if an individual designated by the client with suitable skill, knowledge, and/or experience does not perform the activities described in the interpretation? Two threats to a member’s independence arise if the member assumes the client’s responsibilities under Interpretation No. 101-3. First a “self-review threat” arises when the member reviews, as part of an attest engagement (for exampl
Related Questions
- How should a member assess whether the individual designated by the client to oversee the nonattest service possesses suitable skill, knowledge, and/or experience?
- Is the requirement that the client possess suitable skill, knowledge, and/or experience to oversee the nonattest services provided by the member a new provision?
- What does suitable skill, knowledge, and/or experience mean in the context of Interpretation No. 101-3?
