AICPA Code

592 Words3 Pages

CHANGES TO THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT The proposition of the restructuring of the AICPA so that its members can easily and effectively follow the rules and regulations. The body that is responsible for this restructuring is called the Professional Ethics Executive Committee. This body is going to achieve this by modifying the AICPA code into many parts. It provides rules and regulations to its members in their professional duties. The AIC bylaws also require that the members adhere to the rules and regulations according to their own understanding. However, the rule of specific numbers is no longer in existence. For instance, the previously known rule 101 is now being referred to as the Independence rule and the way in which the interpretations …show more content…

New interpretations were incorporated that ensures the members could use the effective and efficient conceptual framework when there are no rules and regulations applied. A member would be deemed in violation if they cannot prove that security measures were followed that reduced threats to a level that is required. Under this approach the members are required to identify (Goria). Furthermore, Previously the AICPA code did not incorporate a scenario where the self-review threat would be present when judgments and opinions were being aired for work performed by individuals working in a certain firm and were previously working with clients. Therefore, this self-review threat was included to deal with this scenario when it arose. According to the new structured code, self-review threat explains that the members faced with the threat of inappropriately evaluating judgments and services provided, they will depend on that service provided to make a decision as an attest engagement. Furthermore, the PEEC came up with the decision of replacing the word attest client with the client to avoid misapplication of the guidance. (CPA, Sir manager and special projects). In addition, when dealing with the positions of bank directors, guidelines were provided. However, while restructuring this guideline, PPEC thought it necessary that the regulations concerning it to be presented more generally so that the guideline applied when stuff in the public practice were interested in serving as directors in an organizational