1. March 2010 – IAASB to consider issues paper and task force proposals June 2010 – IAASB first read of exposure draft (prior to next IESBA meeting) September 2010 – IAASB approve exposure draft Reviews and Compilations – Project Status

2. IESBA discussed at October 2009 meeting IAASB is of view that current provisions of the Code regarding practitioner’s involvement with client’s accounting records and financial statements are appropriate Review Engagements

3. IAASB discussed at December 2009 meeting –Independence not required for a compilation engagement –Practitioner’s report should state independence is not required Compilation Engagements

4. Task Force has developed draft requirements –Users want to know factors that impact practitioner’s ability to be objective –Report should disclose existence of any significant interests or relationships which practitioner believes are of interest to the users Compilation Engagements

5. The engagement team shall comply with relevant ethical requirements relating to compilation engagements The engagement partner shall take responsibility for the engagement team’s compliance with the relevant ethical requirements in individual engagements Task Force Draft Requirements

6. The practitioner's report shall contain… –A statement that independence, as described in the IESBA Code for assurance engagements, is not required to perform a compilation engagement –Disclosure of the existence of any significant interests or relationships the practitioner has with the entity that the compiled information relates to, that the practitioner believes are of interest to the intended users of the compiled financial information Task Force Draft Requirements

7. Section 290 contains independence requirements for audit and review engagements and 291 requirements for other assurance engagements Compilations are not an assurance engagement Compilations are not explicitly addressed in the Code Independence - Code

8. Points indicating no need –Existing compilation standard does not require independence but requires practitioner to disclose if not independent –Only a few respondents to IESBA strategy survey stated IESBA should address –Revised ISRS can contain the guidance Clarification needed?

9. Points indicating need –Code does not explicitly say independence is not required –Practitioners need guidance on types of interests or relationships that need to be disclosed –Without guidance practitioners may look to Section 290 or 291 – self-review threat not as relevant in a compilation engagement Clarification needed?

10. Revise Code –Project proposal –Exposure Draft –Revision would be in Code Interpretation –Faster –Should not interpret or clarify the meaning Staff Q&A –Non authoritative –Not with the Code Approaches to clarification