Accounting
IAASB rolls out ISSA 5000 sustainability assurance standard
The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board is preparing for the adoption of its International Standard on Sustainability Assurance 5000 early next year as companies look to get outside approval from auditing firms on their environmental efforts.
The IAASB
Policymakers, regulators and other standard-setting bodies in multiple jurisdictions have already indicated plans to adopt this new standard. Earlier this year the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recognized the IAASB’s work and standards in this area for the purpose of allowing assurance on climate disclosures, even though the SEC’s own
“ISSA 5000, which is our sustainability assurance standard, is meant to serve as a global baseline for sustainability assurance practices,” said IAASB chair Tom Seidenstein.
Once the PIOB certifies the IAASB standard, the IAASB plans to offer a range of guidance and educational materials to help people and other standard-setters with the application and implementation of ISSA 5000. So far, the IAASB has heard positive responses from standard-setters in various jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, Brazil, Turkey and the European Union, about their intention of adopting some or all of the standard for their requirements. “That’s just the earliest stages,” said Seidenstein. “They were all waiting for us to finish the standard, and we’ll have to see how those considerations progress.”
ISSA 5000 builds on two of the IAASB’s existing standards on assurance:
“With the growing desire to have sustainability reporting throughout the world and the emergence of some of the leading reporting frameworks, we were urged to take what we had and make it specific to sustainability reporting,” said Seidenstein. “We took a pretty broad-based, principles-based framework that applied to all assurance and really focused it in, took our best practices on the assurance side, grabbed some of the key concepts that we’ve brought into the audit side, and made a sustainability-specific standard. Now what’s really important about this is it will work with all sustainability information prepared with any suitable reporting framework.”
That means it would work with not only the
The IAASB developed the standards so they could work with various frameworks. “Our standard covers any sustainability information, so that would be covered as long as the reporting framework fulfills certain criteria, then our standard will work against that,” said Seidenstein. “You’re assuring against a framework. Reporting standard-setters will set the framework.”
ISSA 5000 addresses both limited and reasonable assurance. “Most assurance engagements these days are on a limited assurance basis,” said Seidenstein, noting that both the SEC and CSRD rules require only limited assurance. But he believes investors will eventually be demanding the more stringent “reasonable assurance.”
“We wanted to have a clear pathway in our standards with a differentiation between limited and reachable assurance requirements, and ISSA 5000 provides both,” said Seidenstein.
Reasonable assurance is similar to the level of assurance offered in financial audits. “The assurance practitioner does a number of inquiries, does the risk assessment, responds to it and reduces the risk of material misstatement down to an acceptable level,” Seidenstein explained. “That’s really important, and will give a high-level degree of confidence that the sustainability reports are stated correctly. In the world of limited assurance, there’s less work done. It’s stated in a negative way, that there’s nothing that’s come to the attention of the practitioner that would lead them to believe that the statements are materially misstated. That’s really about a different type of risk assessment, different lines of inquiry, in responding to areas of risk, whereas a reasonable assurance engagement is much more robust. Most people are focused on limited right now to develop the capacity, knowledge and understanding as we then transition to reasonable assurance over time.”
However, the standards should help investors assess the reliability of a company’s sustainability reporting.
“What these standards will do, just like audit standards and just like assurance today, but in a much more specific way, will give the users of information more confidence that an external third party that’s independent and expert has reviewed the sustainability reports and can either provide a limited assurance or reasonable assurance opinion against the sustainability report, and that should give confidence,” said Seidenstein. “It’s the same thing as you would expect on the financial reporting side. It’s precisely why audits are important that you have an independent expert third party look at it to make sure that there’s no material misstatements.”
An
Auditors would follow many of the same basic approaches and methodologies in the world of financial auditing, from the planning to the conclusion to the reporting stages. “We focus very much on the planning, the risk assessment phase, the risk response phase of audits, so it’s very similar in many concepts, but translated to a sustainability context,” said Seidenstein. “What is slightly different in this world is first of all, you have much more qualitative and prospective information than you would in the financial reporting context, so you’re very focused on the process, the controls, the approach to making sure that the disclosures are materially correct.”
The IAASB wrote the standard so it can be used by both accountants and non-accountants since some other types of consulting firms that aren’t accounting firms have also been providing assurance on sustainability reporting, particularly when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. IFAC’s
The report found the IAASB’s assurance standard, International Standard on Assurance Engagements 3000 (Revised), continues to be used most frequently. In the most recent year for which data is available (2022), 92% of firms applied ISAE 3000 (Revised) in their sustainability assurance engagements, 98% of companies reported some level of detail on sustainability, and 69% obtained assurance on at least some of their sustainability disclosures. But the mix of reporting standards used by companies remains fragmented
For ISSA 5000, non-accountant practitioners would still need to adhere to the IAASB’s quality management standards as well as the ethics standards developed by its sister standard-setting board, the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants. IESBA has also been developing ethics standards for sustainability reporting. The International Organization of Securities Commissions has
“We’re clearly proud of this work, that we were able to turn this around in under two years’ time with robust due process, and we met the timeline particularly set forward by IOSCO in their recommendation to both us and IESBA in terms of supporting sustainability reporting requirements,” said Seidenstein.
Even though the SEC’s climate rule is on hold, he believes the standards will still be useful for U.S. accountants.
“In the United States, there are many different companies that will be seeking assurance, or already do seek assurance, on their sustainability reporting,” said Seidenstein. “So many companies have ESG reports or sustainability reports on a voluntary basis. There are a number of companies that are likely to adopt ISSB standards beyond that on a voluntary basis, or report on some other set of standards currently and are seeking assurance. There are many companies that will be required to conform with the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, and they will be required to have assurance under the CSRD and potentially be required to use our set of standards. The European Commission asked the CEAOB, which is the Committee of European Audit Oversight Boards, to advise the Commission on how to implement assurance requirements. It said specifically to look at our work on 5000 in that regard. American companies may have that requirement and could be in the value chain of companies that require sustainability reporting, whether it’s in Europe or elsewhere, and would also require assurance. There are a number of ways that our work could be relevant to American companies, irrespective of the climate rule.”
A recent
ISSA 5000 promises to be widely useful for auditing firms in providing assurance on these important metrics. “We believe that this will establish a global baseline on the assurance side to complement what’s happening on the reporting side, and you really can’t have one without the other,” said Seidenstein.
Captive audience; some disagreement; game of 21; and other highlights of recent tax cases.
Barrington, Illinois: Tax preparer Gary Sandiego has been sentenced to 16 months in prison for preparing and filing false returns for clients.
He owned and operated the tax prep business G. Sandiego and Associates and for 2014 through 2017 prepared and filed false income tax returns for clients. Instead of relying on information provided by the clients, Sandiego either inflated or entirely fabricated expenses to falsely claim residential energy credits and employment-related expense deductions.
Sandiego, who
He was also ordered to serve a year of supervised release and pay $2,910,442 in restitution to the IRS.
Ft. Worth, Texas: A federal district court has entered permanent injunctions against CPA Charles Dombek and The Optimal Financial Group LLC, barring them from promoting any tax plan that involves creating or using sham management companies, deducting personal non-deductible expenses as business expenses or assisting in the creation of “captive” insurance companies.
The injunctions also prohibit Dombek from preparing any federal returns for anyone other than himself and Optimal from preparing certain federal returns reflecting such tax plans. Dombek and Optimal consented to entry of the injunctions.
According to the complaint, Dombek is a licensed CPA and served as Optimal’s manager and president. Allegedly, Dombek and Optimal promoted a scheme throughout the U.S. to illegally reduce clients’ income tax liabilities by using sham management companies to improperly shift income to be taxed at lower tax rates, improperly defer taxable income or improperly claim personal expenses as business deductions. As alleged by the government, Dombek also promoted himself as the “premier dental CPA” in America.
The complaint further alleges that in promoting the schemes, Dombek and Optimal made false statements about the tax benefits of the scheme that they knew or had reason to know were false, then prepared and signed clients’ returns reflecting the sham transactions, expenses and deductions.
The government contended that the total harm to the Treasury could be $10 million or more.
Kansas City, Missouri: Former IRS employee Sandra D. Mondaine, of Grandview, Missouri, has pleaded guilty to preparing returns that illegally claimed more than $200,000 in refunds for clients.
Mondaine previously worked for the IRS as a contact representative before retiring. She admitted that she prepared federal income tax returns for clients that contained false and fraudulent claims; the indictment charged her with helping at least 11 individuals file at least 39 false and fraudulent income tax returns for 2019 through 2021. Mondaine was able to manufacture substantial refunds for her clients that they would not have been entitled to if the returns had been accurately prepared. She charged clients either a fixed dollar amount or a percentage of the refund or both.
The tax loss associated with those false returns is some $237,329, though the parties disagree on the total.
Mondaine must pay restitution to the IRS and consents to a permanent injunction in a separate civil action, under which she will be permanently enjoined from preparing, assisting in, directing or supervising the preparation or filing of federal returns for any person or entity other than herself. She is also subject to up to three years in prison.
Los Angeles: Long-time lawyer Milton C. Grimes has pleaded guilty to evading more than $4 million in federal taxes over 21 years.
Grimes pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion relating to his 2014 taxes, admitting that he failed to pay $1,690,922 to the IRS. He did not pay federal income taxes for 23 years — 2002 through 2005, 2007, 2009 through 2011, and 2014 through 2023 — a total of $4,071,215 owed to the IRS. Grimes also admitted he did not file a 2013 federal return.
From at least September 2011, the IRS issued more than 30 levies on his personal bank accounts. From at least May 2014 to April 2020, Grimes evaded payment of the outstanding income tax by not depositing income he earned from his clients into those accounts. Instead, he bought some 238 cashier’s checks totaling $16 million to keep the money out of the reach of the IRS, withdrawing cash from his client trust account, his interest on lawyers’ trust accounts and his law firm’s bank account.
Sentencing is Feb. 11. Grimes faces up to five years in federal prison, though prosecutors have agreed to seek no more than 22 months.
Sacramento, California: Residents Dominic Davis and Sharitia Wright have pleaded guilty to conspiracy to file false claims with the IRS.
Between March 2019 and April 2022, they caused at least nine fraudulent income tax returns to be filed with the IRS claiming more than $2 million in refunds. The returns were filed in the names of Davis, Wright and family members and listed wages that the taxpayers had not earned and often listed the taxpayers’ employer as one of the various LLCs created by Davis, Wright and their family members. Many of the returns also falsely claimed charitable contributions.
Davis prepared and filed the false returns; Wright provided him information and contacted the IRS to check on the status of the refunds claimed.
Davis and Wright agreed to pay restitution. Sentencing is Feb. 3, when each faces up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
St. Louis: Tax attorneys Michael Elliott Kohn and Catherine Elizabeth Chollet and insurance agent David Shane Simmons have been sentenced to prison for conspiring to defraud the U.S. and helping clients file false returns based on their promotion and operation of a fraudulent tax shelter.
Kohn was sentenced to seven years in prison and Chollet to four years. Simmons was sentenced to five years in prison.
From 2011 to November 2022, Kohn and Chollet, both of St. Louis, and Simmons, who is based out of Jefferson, North Carolina, promoted, marketed and sold to clients the Gain Elimination Plan, a fraudulent tax scheme. They designed the plan to conceal clients’ income from the IRS by inflating business expenses through fictitious royalties and management fees. These fictitious fees were paid, on paper, to a limited partnership largely owned by a charity. Kohn and Chollet fabricated the fees.
Kohn and Chollet advised clients that the plan’s limited partnership was required to obtain insurance on the life of the clients to cover the income allocated to the charitable organization. The death benefit was directly tied to the anticipated profitability of the clients’ businesses and how much of the clients’ taxable income was intended to be sheltered.
Simmons earned more than $2.3 million in commissions for selling the insurance policies, splitting the commissions with Kohn and Chollet. Kohn and Chollet received more than $1 million from Simmons.
Simmons also filed false personal returns that underreported his business income and inflated his business expenses, resulting in a tax loss of more than $480,000.
In total, the defendants caused a tax loss to the IRS of more than $22 million.
Each was also ordered to serve three years’ supervised release and to pay $22,515,615 in restitution to the United States.
Hannis T. Bourgeois celebrates 100 years with charitable initiative; KPMG and Moss Adams release surveys; and more news from across the profession.
The American Institute of CPAs is still concerned about the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s new firm and engagement metrics standard, despite some modifications from the original proposal.
During a board meeting Thursday, the PCAOB
Under the new rules, PCAOB-registered public accounting firms that audit one or more issuers that qualify as an accelerated filer or large accelerated filer will be required to publicly report specified metrics relating to such audits and their audit practices. The metrics cover the following eight areas:
- Partner and manager involvement;
- Workload;
- Training hours for audit personnel;
- Experience of audit personnel;
- Industry experience;
- Retention of audit personnel (firm-level only);
- Allocation of audit hours; and,
- Restatement history (firm-level only).
The AICPA reacted cautiously to the announcement. “We’re still studying the components of the final firm metrics requirements but, as we stated in our comment letter to the PCAOB this past summer, these rules will place a significant burden on small and midsized audit firms and could lead some to exit public company auditing altogether,” said the AICPA in a statement emailed Friday to Accounting Today. “This is not just conjecture: a majority of respondents (51%) to a recent survey we did of Top 500 firms with audit practices said they would rethink engaging in public company audits if the requirements were approved.”
The PCAOB it made some modifications to the original proposal in response to the comments had received since April:
- Reduced the metric areas to eight (from 11);
- Refined the metrics to simplify and clarify the calculations;
- Increased the ability to provide optional narrative disclosure (from 500 to 1,000 characters); and,
- Updated the effective date. (If approved by the SEC, the earliest effective date of the firm-level metrics will be Oct. 1, 2027, with the first reporting as of September 30, 2028, and engagement-level metrics for the audits of companies with fiscal years beginning on or after Oct. 1, 2027.)
The AICPA welcomed those changes but doesn’t think they go far enough. “We’re glad the PCAOB took some comments to heart by extending implementation dates, particularly for smaller firms, and lowering the number of required metrics,” said the AICPA. “But the potential consequences of the remaining requirements — reduced competition and market diversity in the public audit space — are a significant risk. We hope the SEC will give these unintended outcomes the weight they deserve before giving final approval to the requirements.”
The Securities and Exchange Commission would still need to give final approval to the standard, as well as the new firm reporting standard. Last week, the PCAOB decided to
Super Micro’s stock had a historic week — but it’s still 70% off its highs
Hoping for an OpenAI or Anthropic IPO? Here’s why that’s unlikely anytime soon.
Trump’s Treasury pick is Scott Bessent. He’s said it’s absurd to fear ‘Trump-flation.’
Are American progressives making themselves sad?
U.S. Beneficial Ownership Information Registry Now Accepting Reports
New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations
-
Accounting7 days agoHow to Create an Effective Invoice Process for Small Businesses
-
Personal Finance1 week agoOlder voters prioritized personal economic issues on Election Day: AARP
-
Personal Finance1 week agoHere’s the inflation breakdown for October 2024 — in one chart
-
Personal Finance1 week agoHouse just voted yes to increase Social Security for some beneficiaries
-
Economics1 week agoClimate change and the next administration
-
Economics1 week agoWholesale prices rose 0.2% in October, in line with expectations
-
Personal Finance1 week agoHere’s what to expect on mortgage rates into early 2025
-
Economics1 week agoWhat would Robert F. Kennedy junior mean for American health?