U.S. Assurance Publications

Subscribe to U.S. Assurance Publications feed
This is a feed of the latest BDO USA Assurance Publications.
Updated: 13 hours 23 min ago

Illustrative Audit Committee Charter

Tue, 04/07/2015 - 12:00am
The following illustrative Audit Committee Charter is intended as an example to assist the audit committee in constructing its own company-specific charter that will be used as a working document or practical roadmap to outline its responsibilities and required duties. The charter should be assessed continually, but at least annually, to ensure that it captures and portrays the role of the audit committee accurately.

Significant Accounting & Reporting Matters Q1 2015

Fri, 04/03/2015 - 12:00am
Issued on a quarterly basis, the Significant Accounting and Reporting Matters Guide provides a brief digest of final and proposed financial accounting standards. This guide is designed to help audit committees, boards and financial executives keep up to date on the latest corporate governance and financial reporting developments.

FASB Flash Report - April 2015

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 12:00am
FASB Votes to Defer Revenue Standard by One Year

Earlier today, the FASB decided to propose a one-year delay of the effective date for the new revenue recognition standard that it issued jointly with the IASB in 2014. If the proposal is finalized, the revenue recognition standard would take effect in 2018 for calendar year-end public entities.  It would take effect for private entities in 2019.  The proposal is expected to be released soon with a 30 day comment period.

Main Provisions

The FASB’s decision to propose a deferral results from a number of requests to defer the effective date of the new revenue standard.1 However, the Board also received feedback from some entities that do not think a deferral is necessary. As a result, the proposal will include an option for public and private entities to early adopt using the original effective dates, which is designed to provide flexibility for different companies in various stages of their implementation efforts. The IASB has not yet indicated whether it will propose a similar extension of the effective dates in IFRS 15, the companion to the new revenue standard in U.S. GAAP.
Specifically, the deferral would require public entities to apply the new revenue standard for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017 (i.e., January 1, 2018 for a calendar year entity), including interim reporting periods therein. Public entities would be permitted to elect to early adopt for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016.
Private entities would apply the new revenue standard for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018 (i.e., January 1, 2019 for a calendar year entity) and interim reporting periods within annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019 (i.e., the quarter ending March 31, 2020 for a calendar year entity). A nonpublic entity may elect to early adopt for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim reporting periods therein.

On the Horizon

The joint FASB/IASB Transition Resource Group has held a number of meetings to discuss revenue recognition implementation issues. As a result, the Boards have decided certain changes are needed to make the new revenue standard more operational and are planning to propose amendments to that effect, which will also be exposed for public comment.  Additional changes in connection with future TRG deliberations are also possible.  Therefore, stakeholders should monitor these developments during their implementation efforts.

For questions related to matters discussed above, please contact Adam BrownKenneth Gee or Chris Smith.

1 ASU 2014-09 Revenue from Contracts with Customers

EBP Commentator - Winter 2015

Fri, 03/20/2015 - 12:00am

  The Impact of Social Security Numbers on Employee Benefit Plans Social Security numbers (SSNs) in employee benefit plans (EBP) are a topic of growing concern for multiple reasons. Employee benefit plans are faced with SSNs that belong to individuals who are deceased, that belong to other individuals, and some that are invalid altogether. In the September 11, 2014 session on Retirement Hot Topics, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) representatives indicated that with over 200 million SSNs issued, approximately 40 million of those numbers are erroneously connected to more than one person.

One significant challenge regarding inaccurate SSNs is the difficulty in distributing benefits. For example, distributions to a participant with an invalid SSN may not be processed properly; therefore, participants who are required to take minimum distributions may be subject to a penalty of 50% if they are unable to withdraw required amounts by the applicable deadline. Also, balances cannot be rolled over into another account until an accurate SSN is obtained. This creates complications for plans with cash-out clauses as plan administrators are unable to force participants with small balances out until they can obtain valid SSNs for those participants.

Employers should use caution to ensure accuracy of SSNs. In the event that errors are noted, the Social Security Administration office has a Social Security number verification service available to employers to make corrections. This service is available via mail, telephone, and online at http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnv.htm.
Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 On December 16, 2014, the President signed into law the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA), which was part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015.

MPRA reflects many of the recommendations that had been specifically suggested by joint business and labor leaders via the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans (NCCMP). The MPRA makes sweeping changes to current law governing multiemployer pension plans.

The four main components of the MPRA are:
  • Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premium increases
  • Technical modifications to the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) and other rules applicable to multiemployer plans
  • Benefit suspensions for certain critical status (red zone) plans
  • Plan mergers and partitions
PBGC Premium Increases
The PBGC multiemployer premium rate has doubled from $13 to $26 per participant effective in 2015. The per-participant dollar amount will be indexed to wage inflation after 2015.

PPA Technical Modifications
The MPRA made a number of technical modifications to the rules governing multiemployer plans. Unless it is otherwise stated, these modifications are effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2014.

Some of the changes include:
  • Sunset Repeal. The sunset provision in the PPA for certain funding rules has been eliminated. For example, special rules for critical status (red zone), endangered status (yellow zone plans), and seriously endangered plans (orange zone plans) are now a permanent feature of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
  • Red Zone Status Election. The MPRA allows a plan, not yet in critical status (not in the red zone), to elect red zone status for a plan year if the plan’s actuary projects that the plan will be in critical status in any of the five following plan years.
  • Elimination of the Revolving Door for Critical Status Plans. The MPRA provides corrective rules that prevent critical status (red zone) plans emerging from critical status from re-entering critical status. The tests for entering and emerging from critical status, under the prior law, contained certain inconsistencies that caused a revolving door effect.
  • Default Contribution Schedules. If a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) expires and the bargaining parties are unable to agree to a new contribution schedule, the existing CBA’s contribution schedule that provides for contributions in accordance with a funding improvement plan will remain in effect.
  • Calculation of Withdrawal Liability. Benefit reductions, contribution increases, and contribution surcharges can be disregarded when calculating withdrawal liability effective for benefit reductions and contribution increases that go into effect during plan years beginning after December 31, 2014 and surcharges that accrue on or after December 31, 2014.
Benefit Suspensions
A new zone status, “critical and declining status,” has been created. Plans in this status may suspend accrued benefits as well as benefits of participants and beneficiaries currently in pay status. A “critical and declining status” plan is defined as a plan that is projected to become insolvent within 15 years, or is projected to become insolvent within 20 years if either the plan’s ratio of inactive to active participants is greater than 2-to-1 or the plan is less than 80% funded. This is the definition of a critical status plan under the PPA rules (a red zone plan).

Trustees of declining status plans are given wide latitude to design a benefits suspension. The trustee can choose to implement a temporary or permanent reduction of any current or future payment obligation to any participant or beneficiary whether or not they are in pay status.

Mergers and Partitions
The merger and partition rules are also effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2014.

The MPRA provides new rules for mergers with the assistance of the PBGC. Once requested by the plan sponsor, the PBGC will take appropriate action to promote and facilitate a merger if it determines that the merger is in the interests of participants in all of the plans.

Financial assistance may be provided for a merger if it is necessary to enable one or more plans to avoid or postpone insolvency if the agency reasonably expects that the assistance will reduce the PBGC’s expected long-term loss for the plans involved and such assistance is necessary for the merged plan to become or remain solvent.
AICPA Guidance Regarding Use of Updated Mortality Tables The AICPA has released guidance regarding use of the recently released, updated mortality tables (which we announced in our Fall 2014 Special Defined Benefit Plan Edition) in computing benefit liabilities for EBPs. This guidance is in the Technical Question and Answer (Technical Q&A) under Section 3700, Pension Obligations, Section 3700.01, Effect of New Mortality Tables on Nongovernmental Employee Benefit Plans (EBPs) and Nongovernmental Entities That Sponsor EBPs (Technical Q&A 3700.01). Technical Q&A 3700.01 specifically addresses the impact of the updated mortality tables on financial statements that were not issued by the publication date of the updated mortality tables and indicates that generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires the use of “a mortality assumption that reflects the best estimate of the plan’s future experience.” GAAP requires an entity to evaluate available evidence through the date financial statements are available to be issued (the Q&A also cites FASB ASC 855-10-55-1, which states that information that becomes available after the balance sheet date may be indicative of conditions that existed before the balance sheet date).

In our opinion, the crux of Technical Q&A 3700.01 is its statement that “Updated mortality tables are based on historical trends and data that go back many years; therefore, the existence of updated mortality conditions is not predicated upon the date that the updated mortality tables are published. Management of a nongovernmental EBP or a nongovernmental sponsoring entity should understand and evaluate the reasonableness of the mortality assumption chosen…..and document its evaluation and the basis for selecting the mortality tables it decided to use for its current financial reporting period.” As such, these updated mortality tables may represent significant evidence for certain plans that should be evaluated by the sponsor and plan management before financial statement issuance occurs. For further details, see http://www.aicpa.org/interestareas/frc/downloadabledocuments/tqa_sections/tqa_section_3700_01.pdf.
Updated Broker Fiduciary Rules Submitted In February 2015, the Department of Labor (DOL) submitted an updated, proposed “conflict-of- interest” rule to the Office of Management and Budget for a 90-day interagency review process.

While the rule will not be made public until the review process is complete, there is media speculation that the approval process will be expedited in order to limit further opposition as this rule has been hotly contested since being originally proposed over four years ago.

While specifics have not been released, a FAQ on the DOL’s website states that with this revised rule the DOL is seeking a “a balanced approach that improves protections for retirement savers, ensures that advisers provide advice in their client’s best interest, and also minimizes any potential disruptions to all the good advice in the market.” Additionally, the White House’s announcement of the rule cited a newly released report from the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and indicated that “misaligned incentives” influence brokers to steer clients into higher-cost products and that over $1 trillion of individual retirement accounts are invested in products with conflict-of-interest generating payments. It is these payments to brokers that the “conflict-of-interest” rule is expected to address.

Based on a recent leaked memo discussing the updated rule, some predict that this version of the rule will be less stringent than the original proposed rule as a form of compromise to opponents of the expanded fiduciary regulations. With both the White House and Congress entering the fray, stay tuned for the rule’s public release.

FASB Flash Report

Tue, 03/03/2015 - 12:00am
FASB Issues ASU to Simplify Consolidation Analysis Summary The FASB recently changed its consolidation guidance, which may have a significant impact on certain entities. The new ASU simplifies U.S. GAAP by eliminating entity specific consolidation guidance for limited partnerships. It also revises other aspects of the consolidation analysis, including how kick-out rights, fee arrangements and related parties are assessed. The amendments rescind the indefinite deferral of FASB Statement 167 for certain investment funds and replace it with a permanent scope exception for money market funds. The new standard takes effect in 2016 for public companies and is available here. The changes affect all entities, particularly those in the financial service, real estate and energy sectors.
  Main Provisions ASU 2015-02[1] changes the consolidation analysis for all reporting entities.  The changes primarily affect the consolidation of limited partnerships and their equivalents (e.g., limited liability corporations), as well as structured vehicles such as collateralized debt obligations. 
The existing consolidation guidance for corporations that are not variable interest entities (VIEs) is unchanged.  The usual condition for a controlling financial interest in that situation is owning a majority of the voting shares. 
Specifically, the amendments impact the following areas of consolidation analysis, most of which apply to the VIE assessment:
  1. Limited partnerships and similar legal entities
  2. Entities other than limited partnerships and their equivalents
  3. Evaluating fees paid to a decision maker or a service provider as a variable interest
  4. The effect of fee arrangements on the primary beneficiary determination
  5. The effect of related parties on the primary beneficiary determination
  6. Certain investment funds
Limited partnerships and similar legal entities
The amendments eliminate the presumption in Subtopic 810-10 (formerly EITF 04-05) that a general partner should consolidate a limited partnership.  As a result, fewer limited partnerships will be consolidated.
When evaluating whether a limited partnership or similar legal entity (collectively, an “LP”) is a VIE, a new test that considers two factors must be addressed:[2]
  • At a minimum, a simple majority (e.g., 51%) of the limited partners must hold substantive kick-out rights over the general partner. Kick-out rights may also be held by a lower threshold, for example a kick-out right exercisable by a single party.
  • The limited partners must hold participating rights over the general partner.
If the limited partners lack both conditions, the LP is a VIE.[3]  In that situation, the identification of a primary beneficiary is based on the “power and economics” principle in Topic 810.
If the LP is a voting entity (not a VIE), only a single limited partner with ownership of more than 50% of the LP’s substantive kick-out rights, if any, will consolidate, unless other limited partners have substantive participating rights.  The general partner typically will not consolidate the LP. 
Entities other than limited partnerships and their equivalents
The new standard also changes how entities other than LPs, for instance corporations, are assessed to determine if they are VIEs by performing the following two-step analysis, assuming no other VIE characteristics are present:
  • Do the equity holders as a group hold voting or similar rights to direct the activities of the entity that most significantly impact its economic performance?  If so, the entity is not considered a VIE and the next step is not considered.
  • If the equity holders lack such rights, is a single equity holder at risk able to exercise kickout or participating rights over the rights of the entity’s decision maker, such as a fund manager.  If so, the entity is not a VIE.  Otherwise, it is.
This revision to the VIE model was primarily made to prevent certain mutual funds and other “externally managed” entities from being VIEs.
Evaluating fees paid to a decision maker or a service provider as a variable interest
The new ASU eliminates three of the six conditions that exist for evaluating whether a fee paid to a decision maker or a service provider represents a variable interest, e.g., whether a fund manager’s “2/20” fee arrangement is a variable interest.  A decision maker or service provider would be precluded from consolidating a VIE solely on the basis of its fee interest if all three of the following conditions are satisfied:
  • The fees are compensation for services provided and are commensurate with the level of effort required to provide those services.
  • The decision maker or service provider does not hold other interests in the VIE that individually, or in the aggregate, would absorb more than an insignificant amount of the VIE’s expected losses or receive more than an insignificant amount of the VIE’s expected residual returns.[4]
  • The service arrangement includes only terms, conditions, or amounts that are customarily present in arrangements for similar services negotiated at arm’s length.
However, fee interests are not eligible for this exemption if the service provider is also exposed to a “principal” risk of loss in the entity.  The ASU cites guarantees on the value of the VIE’s assets or liabilities, an obligation to fund losses, or payments triggered by written put options to illustrate this point.  In those situations, the service provider is exposed to more than the opportunity cost of earning its fees.  Therefore, it would be exposed to a “principal” risk of loss, its fees would be a variable interest, and further analysis would be required to determine whether it is the primary beneficiary.
The effect of fee arrangements on the primary beneficiary determination
The amendments also state that, in certain circumstances, fees paid to a decision maker are excluded from the primary beneficiary analysis, which is distinct from the discussion above about whether the fees represent a variable interest in the VIE. 
Specifically, if the fees are both customary and commensurate with the level of effort required for the services provided, the decision maker may exclude the fees from its determination of whether it has an obligation to absorb losses of the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE (“the economics test”).  As a result, the decision maker would evaluate whether its other interests in the VIE (if any), such as debt or equity investments, meet the economics test. 
The effect of related parties on the primary beneficiary determination
The amendments change the related party guidance such that a single[5] decision maker (e.g., a fund manager) with a direct interest in a VIE will also consider related party relationships indirectly on a proportionate basis.  For example, assume a single decision maker owns a 20% interest in a related party and that related party owns a 40% interest in the VIE being evaluated. The decision maker’s indirect interest would be considered equivalent to an 8% direct interest (40% x 20%) in the VIE for purposes of evaluating whether it holds significant economic exposure in the VIE.
If the single decision maker does not consolidate on the basis of its direct and indirect interests, its related party relationships should be considered in their entirety (e.g., 40% in the previous example) if the related parties are under common control and meet the economics test.  Said differently, the single decision-maker and common control group have a controlling financial interest.  In that situation, the current related party tie-breaker test should be performed to identify the primary beneficiary, which could be the decision maker or another member of the common control group.  This is another significant change, since under current guidance, the related party tiebreaker test is applied regardless of whether the related parties and single decision maker are under common control.
Finally, if neither the decision maker nor a related party in the common control group consolidates under the two preceding paragraphs, but substantially all of the VIE’s activities are conducted on behalf of a single variable interest holder that is related to the decision maker but is not part of the common control group, that variable interest holder (not the decision maker) is required to consolidate.  This provision was included in the standard to address concerns about attempts to circumvent the VIE consolidation guidance.  It is not expected to apply in most situations.
The changes above to the related party guidance do not apply to situations in which power is shared between two or more unrelated entities that hold variable interests in a VIE, for which existing guidance continues to apply.
Certain investment funds
The new standard eliminates the indefinite deferral of FASB Statement 167 for certain investment funds provided by ASU 2010-10.[6]  Instead, it provides a scope exception for reporting entities with interests in entities subject to Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and similar investments.  Consequently, such money market funds will not be consolidated.
  Effective Date and Transition The amendments are effective for public business entities for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015. For all other entities, the amendments in this Update are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, and for interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. If an entity early adopts the amendments in an interim period, any adjustments should be reflected as of the beginning of the fiscal year that includes that interim period.
Transition methods include a modified retrospective approach wherein an entity records a cumulative-effect adjustment to equity as of the beginning of the fiscal year of adoption, and a full retrospective approach.
    [1] Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis [2] See 810-10-25-14(b)(1)(ii) which amends one of the existing five characteristics of a VIE. [3] The LP is not a VIE if one or both of the conditions exist, assuming no other VIE characteristics are present.  For purposes of this assessment, the limited partners that hold these rights must be unrelated to the general partner. [4] This factor also considers interests held by related parties.  The assessment varies based on whether the related parties are under common control with the decision maker or not. [5] If there is more than one decision maker within a related party group, the related party tiebreaker test must still be considered, consistent with current guidance. [6] Consolidation (Topic 810): Amendments for Certain Investment Funds

BDO Sweeps 2014 Audit Clients

Thu, 02/26/2015 - 12:00am
For the second year running, BDO USA has racked up the most new Securities and Exchange Commission audit clients, with a net of 40 on a total of 54 new engagements.

BDO Comment Letter - Disclosures About Investments in Other Investment Companies

Tue, 02/17/2015 - 12:00am
Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Financial Services – Investment Companies (Topic 946) – Disclosures about Investments in Other Investment Companies (File Reference No. 2014-270) (“the ED”)


Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:00am
Daily reporting of IFRS developments, including exposure drafts, standards and interpretations issued by the IASB and IFRIC.

Learn More

BDO International Comment Letters on IFRS Standard Setting

Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:00am
BDO comments on various projects of international standard setters, including Exposure Drafts, and other Discussion Papers, when it is considered that the issue is significant to the network.

Learn More

IFRS External Resources

Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:00am

Below are links to other IFRS websites recommended by BDO that contain valuable information and tools that may be of further interest:

International Accounting Standards Board ("IASB")
Refer to current summaries and project updates for both IASB and the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC), technical guidance and authoritative literature, and other publications and materials.

Securities and Exchange Commission
Refer to the SEC's website for the latest developments and information concerning Global Accounting Standards.

AICPA IFRS Resources
Refer to the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)'s IFRS resources website intended for use by accounting professionals, auditors, financial managers and other users of financial statements.

Refer to CFO.com for information valued by corporate decision makers available online, in print, and through specialized events, conferences and research.

Compliance Week
Refer to Compliance Week for information on corporate governance, risk and compliance featuring a weekly electronic newsletter, a monthly print magazine, proprietary databases, industry-leading events, and a variety of interactive features and forums.

Center for Audit Quality (CAQ)
Refer to the CAQ’s website to obtain their Guide to International Financial Reporting Standards, issued in September 2009, which was developed to provide interested parties with useful information and to help facilitate an informed public discussion among all those who have a stake in our capital markets system.Content provided in these materials is meant to provide general information and should not be acted upon without first obtaining professional advice appropriately tailored to your individual circumstances.

The BDO 600

Thu, 01/22/2015 - 12:00am
This BDO 600 survey details CEO and CFO compensation practices of publicly traded companies in the energy, financial services (banking and non-banking), healthcare, manufacturing, real estate, retail and technology industries. Companies in the six non-financial service industries have annual revenues between $25 million and $1 billion. Companies in the two financial services industries have assets between $50 million and $2 billion. All data in our survey was extracted from proxy statements that were filed between May 15, 2013 and May 15, 2014.

Our survey is unique because it focuses on mid-market companies; most compensation surveys focus on much larger companies.

The BDO 600

Tue, 01/20/2015 - 12:00am

2014 Survey of CEO and CFO Compensation Practices of 600 Mid-Market Public Companies

FASB Flash Report - January 2015

Fri, 01/16/2015 - 12:00am

The FASB recently published an ASU to eliminate the concept of extraordinary items from U.S. GAAP. However, the presentation and disclosure guidance for items that are unusual in nature or occur infrequently will be retained and will be expanded to include items that are both unusual in nature and infrequently occurring.


Significant Accounting & Reporting Matters Q4 2014

Thu, 01/15/2015 - 12:00am

Issued on a quarterly basis, the Significant Accounting and Reporting Matters Guide provides a brief digest of final and proposed financial accounting standards. This guide is designed to help audit committees, boards and financial executives keep up to date on the latest corporate governance and financial reporting developments.


Effects on Historical Earnings per Unit of Master Limited Partnership Dropdown Transactions

Tue, 01/13/2015 - 12:00am

Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Effects on Historical Earnings per Unit of Master Limited Partnership Dropdown Transactions (File Reference No. EITF-14A)


Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820) - Disclosures for Investments in Certain Entities That Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or

Tue, 01/13/2015 - 12:00am

Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820) — Disclosures for Investments in Certain Entities That Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or Its Equivalent) (File Reference No. EITF-14B) (“the ED”)


FASB Newsletter - January 2015

Tue, 01/13/2015 - 12:00am

BDO's 2014 Accounting Year in Review summarizes the year's most significant changes in US GAAP and what to expect in 2015. One of the most notable achievements during 2014 was the issuance of a substantially converged revenue recognition standard by the FASB and IASB that is scheduled to take effect in 2017. A comprehensive list of the effective dates for recently-issued accounting standards is also included.


FASB Flash Report - January 2015

Fri, 01/09/2015 - 12:00am

The FASB issued new guidance for private companies establishing an accounting alternative for certain intangible assets acquired in a business combination. If a private company elects the alternative, it would not recognize separately from goodwill certain assets arising from customer relationships and noncompetition agreements upon acquisition. Rather, they would be subsumed into goodwill, and the goodwill would be amortized. The alternative is intended to reduce cost and complexity for private companies. The decision to elect the alternative must be made upon the occurrence of the first in-scope transaction in years beginning after December 15, 2015, with early application permitted.


2015 BDO IPO Outlook

Wed, 01/07/2015 - 12:00am
In 2014, initial public offerings (IPOs) on U.S. exchanges experienced significant growth in both the number of offerings and proceeds raised. This was the third consecutive year of increases, as both offerings and proceeds reached the highest levels since the dot-com boom of 2000. Virtually every statistical category - offerings (+24%), proceeds (+55%) and filings (+44%) - were up dramatically in 2014, with proceeds experiencing the biggest jump due largely to the $22 billion Alibaba IPO.*

What about 2015?

According to the 2015 BDO IPO Outlook, BDO USA's annual survey of capital markets executives at leading investment banks, the coming year will bring incremental growth in U.S. IPO activity.
*Renaissance Capital is the source of all historical data related to number and size of U.S. IPOs


BDO Assurance Practice SEC Newsletter - January 2015

Tue, 01/06/2015 - 12:00am
The annual AICPA National Conference on current SEC and PCAOB Developments was held on December 8-10, 2014 in Washington, DC, where representatives of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) shared their views on various accounting, reporting, and auditing issues.  The following thought leadership piece provides insight into the SEC and PCAOB staff positions on various accounting, reporting, and auditing issues that were covered during the conference.