Seven-Year Client, Unpaid Fees and a Sister in Internal Audit
You are the lead engagement partner in a KAAA-registered audit firm in Kuwait City. Al-Salmi Industrial Holding KSC, listed on Boursa Kuwait with a 31 December year-end, has been your client for seven years. The 2025 audit fee is KWD 120,000; tax and zakat compliance adds KWD 45,000; and the firm has been asked to value a warehouse that Al-Salmi plans to buy from a company owned by its chairman for KWD 3.1 million. Total fees equal 41% of your office's revenue. The prior-year audit fee of KWD 60,000 is still unpaid nine months after the report date. Your sister was appointed Head of Internal Audit at Al-Salmi in June 2025 and reports directly to the audit committee. The chairman has hinted that the 2026 audit will be tendered if the valuation supports his price.
1. Identify the independence threats in this situation and evaluate whether the overdue fee and your sister's role are compatible with the IESBA Code. What should happen to your role on the engagement?
Read the worked answer
The obvious threats are self-interest (41% fee dependency and the unpaid KWD 60,000), familiarity (seven years, six as lead partner), self-review (tax work feeding the financial statements and the valuation), advocacy (supporting the chairman's purchase price) and intimidation (the tender threat).
The overdue fee is a self-interest threat because the firm is effectively financing the client. The Code requires an evaluation of significance and duration; a fee that is significant to the firm and long overdue cannot normally be reduced to an acceptable level by safeguards, because the client's willingness to pay may influence audit judgements. The practical answer is that the firm should not continue unless the fee is settled, or a credible payment plan with independent oversight is agreed before the next report is issued.
Your sister is a close family member, not an immediate family member. The key question is whether her role puts her in a position to exert significant influence over the subject matter of the audit. As Head of Internal Audit reporting to the audit committee, she influences the control environment and the evidence the audit team relies on. At minimum, you must be removed from the engagement and the firm must evaluate whether her position creates a firm-level threat. For a listed entity, removal of the individual from the audit team is the expected outcome; continuing with you as partner is not defensible.
2. Can the firm accept the warehouse valuation engagement? Explain the analysis for a listed audit client.
Read the worked answer
The valuation is not a routine compliance service. It would be used to support a related-party purchase at KWD 3.1 million, which is KWD 0.9 million above the independent valuation of KWD 2.2 million mentioned in the facts. That creates a self-review threat (the audit team would later test its own number) and an advocacy threat (the firm would be helping the chairman justify his price).
For a public interest entity, valuation services that are material to the financial statements and involve significant subjectivity are generally prohibited where they create a self-review threat that cannot be eliminated. Here the warehouse will be recorded at the purchase price, so the valuation directly affects the financial statements. The chairman's hint also converts the request into an intimidation issue: accepting the work under pressure to produce a favourable number would be worse than the self-review threat itself.
The defensible position is to decline the valuation. The firm can still audit the transaction: obtain the independent valuer's report, challenge the assumptions, consider IAS 24 disclosure, test whether the asset is impaired at KWD 3.1 million, and consider whether the excess over fair value is a distribution to a related party. If the client insists on using the firm's name to support the price, the firm should reconsider the audit relationship.
3. Assuming the firm decides to continue, what safeguards, documentation and communications would you put in place under ISA 220 and ISQM 1?
Read the worked answer
Continuance should be conditional and documented at firm level. The safeguards would include: a written payment plan for the KWD 60,000 with dates and escalation; appointment of a new engagement partner and a separate engagement quality reviewer; removal of any team member with a close family link to the client; and a written protocol that the firm will not perform the valuation or any advocacy work on the chairman's transaction.
The firm-level analysis under ISQM 1 should record the fee dependency, the acceptance decision, the resources assigned and the monitoring response. At engagement level, ISA 220 requires documentation of the threats identified, the safeguards applied and the conclusion that independence is maintained. The team should also document why the sister's role does or does not create a significant influence issue.
Communication with those charged with governance is essential. The audit committee should be told, in writing, about the overdue fee, the sister's role, the valuation request and the tender threat. That communication protects the firm and gives the committee the information it needs to act. If the fee is not paid and the valuation pressure continues, resignation before the 2026 opinion is the more defensible outcome than relying on safeguards that cannot be effective.