Nevada CPA

Peer Review

The Nevada Society of CPAs administers the AICPA Peer Review Program in Nevada, Wyoming, Utah and Nebraska. In addition, the Society contracts with the states’ BOAs to administer the NVCPA Peer Review Program for licensees who are not members of the AICPA.

Enrollment in a peer review program is not required as a condition of membership in the NVCPA.

The membership bylaws of the AICPA require participation in a practice-monitoring program as a condition of membership. Should all owners/partners of a firm cease to be members of the AICPA, the firm will automatically be un-enrolled from the AICPA Peer Review Program. At that time, the firm should enroll in the NVCPA Peer Review Program.

Begin by downloading and completing the Information Required for Scheduling Review form.

If your firm has an owner/partner who is an AICPA member, please complete the AICPA Peer Review Program Enrollment Form.

If your firm does not have any owners/partners who are AICPA members please complete the NVCPA Enrollment Form

Click here to read the NV Society of CPAs Annual Report on Peer Review Oversight for 2016.

Click here to read the Annual Administrative Report on Peer Review Oversight for 2016.

After a firm's enrollment form has been received, a due date for the firm’s initial review is assigned.

Peer Reviewer Information

All Reviewers resumes must be updated every twelve months through PRISM. The Reviewer’s resumes will be verified by the administering entity every three years pursuant to guidance in the AICPA Oversight Handbook. This oversight is to ensure compliance with the Standards and consistency in implementation. Verification will include specific information about the number and type of engagements performed as well as the level of involvement in those engagements.

The Peer Review Process

After a firm's enrollment form has been received, a due date for the firm’s initial review is assigned. Generally, the due date for the firm's first review is 18 months from the date of enrollment or from when the firm should have enrolled.

Scheduling

Approximately six to nine months before a firm's review due date, the NVCPA will send the firm a scheduling packet that must be completed and returned to the NVCPA in order for the review to be scheduled. It is the firm's responsibility to choose its own reviewer. A list of qualified reviewers can be found at the AICPA Web site https://peerreview.aicpa.org/resume/ . The review should not commence until the firm has received notification from NVCPA that the reviewer has been approved to perform the review.

The due date is the date all items are to be submitted to the NVCPA office. Allowing sufficient time to complete the peer review well in advance of the due date will help ensure the review is completed in time. Many factors such as illness, loss of staff, weather, etc. may delay the commencement of a review and could cause the review to be submitted late.

After the Review

Once the review has been completed, the reviewer will issue a report to the firm. If the firm receives a rating of pass on its peer review, the firm does not need to submit the report to the administering entity. Reports with a rating of “pass with deficiencies” or “fail” should be submitted along with the firm's letter of response within 30 days of receiving the report or by the firm's review due date, whichever is earlier.

Administrative and Technical Reviews

The administrative review ensures that all the required documents from the reviewer and the firm are received and complete. The technical reviewer determines whether the review has been conducted in accordance with governing standards and whether the firm has responded to any matters or deficiencies in an appropriate manner.

Committee Process

Once all of the review documents have been through the administrative and technical review process, they are presented to the Peer Review Committee for consideration of acceptance. After the Committee meets and accepts a review, firms should receive the review acceptance letter from the NVCPA within 14 days. However, some firms may be required to perform certain follow-up actions before the review can be closed. Generally, the firm's next review due date is set three years later.

Types of Reviews

System Review

This type of review is for firms that perform engagements under the Statement on Auditing Standards (SASs,) the Government Auditing Standards (Yellow Book), or examinations of prospective financial information under the Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAEs) or audits of non-SEC issuers performed pursuant to the standards of the PCAOB.

In a system review, the reviewer will study and evaluate a CPA firm's quality control policies and procedures that were in effect during the peer review year. This includes interviewing firm personnel and examining administrative files. To evaluate the effectiveness of the system and the degree of compliance with the system, the reviewer will test a reasonable cross-section of the firm's engagements with a focus on high-risk engagements in addition to significant risk areas where the possibility exists of engagements being performed and/or reported on that are not in accordance with professional standards in all material respects. The majority of the procedures in a System Review should be performed at the reviewed firm's office.

Engagement Review

This type of review is for firms that are not required to have a system review and only perform services under SSARS or services under the SSAEs not included in System Reviews.

The objective of an Engagement Review is to evaluate whether engagements submitted for review are performed and reported on in conformity with applicable professional standards in all material respects. An Engagement Review consists of reading the financial statements or information submitted by the reviewed firm and the accountant's report thereon, together with certain background information and representations and, except for compilation engagements performed under SSARS, the applicable documentation required by professional standards.