Hard1 markMultiple Choice

CPA · Question 02 · Area I: Ethics & General Principles

An auditor is performing an audit of an issuer, Global Corp, in accordance with PCAOB standards. The auditor discovers that the client's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) was the lead engagement partner on the audit five years ago. The CFO left the CPA firm four years ago. Which of the following correctly describes the independence implications under SEC and PCAOB rules?

Answer options:

A.

Independence is impaired because a former partner in a financial reporting oversight role permanently impairs independence.

B.

Independence is impaired because the cooling-off period is five years for lead partners.

C.

Independence is not impaired because the one-year cooling-off period has been satisfied.

D.

Independence is impaired unless the audit committee pre-approves the employment relationship.

How to approach this question

Distinguish between partner rotation rules (5 years) and employment cooling-off rules (1 year preceding the start of the audit).

Full Answer

C.Independence is not impaired because the one-year cooling-off period has been satisfied.✓ Correct
Under SEC Rule 2-01(c)(2)(iii)(B), an accounting firm is not independent if a former member of the audit engagement team is employed by the issuer in a Financial Reporting Oversight Role (FROR) unless the individual has completed a 'cooling-off' period equivalent to one annual audit cycle (effectively one year). Since the CFO left 4 years ago, independence is not impaired.

Common mistakes

Confusing the 5-year partner rotation rule with the 1-year employment cooling-off period.

Practice the full CPA AUD Practice Exam 4

78 questions · hints · full answers · grading

More questions from this exam