Point.

• Author: Voynich, W. Gregory
• Position: Point Counterpoint: Voluntary Tax Practice Review

Professionals are professionals because they demand of themselves a sense of perfection and an attitude for quality of performance. In 1977, partially as a reaction to governmental pressures, the concept of peer review was initiated to show the public that this profession is willing to do that which no other profession does--to monitor each other's performance and make the results public.

The endeavor was a huge success, so much so that, in 1989, the Private Companies Practice Section, in response to continuing comments from members, approached the Tax Division with the idea of a voluntary tax practice review for firms that had indicated an interest. The Tax Division had been considering the idea for a couple of years, and this was all the encouragement needed.

A task force was formed and a program was developed. Today, all practitioners submit to a peer/quality review of their accounting and auditing practice. It is only natural that the tax practice be reviewed as well. Firms then can be assured that the vast majority of their practice is reviewed for quality. Practitioners take pride in their work; a review assures them that this pride is deserved.

Mr. Voynich views VTPR "as a program that can only meet its apparent goals by becoming mandatory." I'm not sure what the "apparent goals" are, so it is difficult to respond. Quality control in the accounting and auditing practice was a voluntary program when first introduced to the membership. It became mandatory only when the profession decided it was in its best interests to make it mandatory. So, too, with VTPR; if it ever becomes mandatory, it will be when the profession so determines. Why is that "ill-conceived, ill-timed and a disservice to the AICPA membership"

I will not respond to the criticism relative to the MAS activities of AICPA members. As yet, there has been no suggestion that a review process should be created for those members desiring to use it. However, there is a growing demand by the public for CPAs to apply the attest function in areas other than financial statements. While I acknowledge that the accounting and auditing peer review process was a reaction of the profession to outside influences (namely, congressional hearings and publications), this does not make the process undesirable. Sometimes the profession progresses due to outside influences, and sometimes from internal ones. Doesn't that make us a stronger organization? Would anyone say that the practice of public...