The Final Reports For All Tax and Insurance Departments 2014

Report
Detailed Results
Countries included in this report:

Type of engagements included in
this report:
Number of Selected Answer Set(s) :
Report date
Description
Egypt (9)
TAX (9)
AnswerSet
#8701;2014;cairo;MESA;Corporate & Business Tax;MESA;;Tax;Egypt;Alaam , mohamed;husein amin;No;EMA;
Question
Number
0
0.1
0.1.1
0.1.2
0.1.3
0.1.5
9
2014-08-06 (yyyy-MM-dd)
This report is designed to show the question number, question title, question text, answer, as well as comments provided by the reviewer for a
single answer-set. If several answer-sets are selected when running this report, they will be displayed one after another.
Question Title and Text:

Engagement Information
General Information
Cross Border Client
The engagement selected for review relates to a client that is an
affiliate/subsidiary of a KPMG client in another country.
Client References
I, the QP Reviewer, confirm that I will not include any client names
(including names of parent or subsidiary companies or names of
significant stakeholders, customers, vendors, or lenders) in the
answers and comments to this questionnaire, unless prompted to do
so on a "PIN Performance Improvement Necessary" or "UUnsatisfactory" rated engagement of a cross-border client.
Reviewer Practice Area

Reviewer practice area:
Answer:
Comments:
Yes
Yes
Corporate & Business Tax
Type Engagement
2014 International QP Toolkit

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
2014 KPMG International. All rights reserved.
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
1
Date 2015-10-08
Type of engagement (more than one option can be selected):
0.1.7
0.1.8
Tax Return
Audit Client of KPMG

Was the engagement performed for an:
Other Audit Clients
High Risk Engagement

Has this engagement been evaluated as "High Risk"?
No
See Help Text for explanation of option items
0.1.9
0.1.10
Subcontracting/Loaned Staff
Please select the applicable characteristic(s) from the list below.
Total Engagement Hours

Please enter the total number of hours spent by the engagement
team on this engagement (includes: Partner, Engagement Quality
Control Reviewer/Second Partner/Concurring Partner, Manager, InCharge, Staff, any Specialist(s), etc.).
Not Applicable
36
Please enter in hours rounded to the nearest whole hour without

commas or decimal points
0.1.11
Basis of contracting
Covered under a formal

appointment under local laws

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
2
Date 2015-10-08
and regulations or court order

0.1.12
0.1.13
0.2
0.2.1
Fee Revenue
Please indicate total or estimated fees in USD for this engagement.
$1 - $25,000
Fee Arrangement
What was the fee arrangement for this engagement?
Fixed fee
Engagement Team
Info - Lead Engagement Partner Name
Enter the name of the Lead Engagement Partner(s) or equivalent(s)
(engagement leader). (Last name, First name - as displayed in
emails)
Alaam Mohamed
If there is more than one engagement partner, list all partners

involved, but you must identify which individual is the lead partner
on this engagement after his/ her name.
0.2.2
Info - Lead Engagement Partner Hours

Please enter the total number of hours spent by the lead engagement
partner (or partner equivalent if the engagement leader is not a
partner).

0.2.3
Info - Engagement Manager Name

Enter the name of the Engagement Manager(s). (Last name, First
Abdelwadoud Khaled

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
3
Date 2015-10-08
name - as displayed in emails)
If there is more than one engagement manager, list all managers

involved on the engagement and indicate "(Lead)" after the name of
the lead engagement manager.
0.2.4
Info - Engagement Manager Hours

manager(s).
16
If multiple engagement managers are involved, please include total

manager hours.

0.2.5
Info - Engagement Quality Control Reviewer Hours

Please enter the total number of hours spent by the Engagement
Quality Control Reviewer Partner.
If not applicable, please enter the number "0" in the response field.

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
4
Date 2015-10-08

1
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
Tax
Engagement Evaluation
Sentinel Approval Number Obtained
Is there documented evidence that a Sentinel Approval Number was
properly obtained for this engagement?
Satisfactory
The sentinel date and scope consistent with

EL.
Risk Management Assessment

Based on your review of this file, what is your overall opinion of
the engagement team's compliance with KPMG's risk management
procedures?
Satisfactory
The RM part is consistent with KPMG

policies and COI is done and documented in
the file.
Engagement Team
Was the engagement team formed up by professionals with the
appropriate skills and experience?
Satisfactory
There is direct invilvement from the director

in the meetings with client and file review.
Documentation and appropriate file quality control

Does the file contain complete relevant documentation and is it
maintained with adequate quality control?
Satisfactory
All supporing documents for the rewuired

review were included in the file, properly
stampes as confedential.
Satisfactory
The correspondences and meetings was with

direct involvement of the director.
Review of technical correspondence

Is there evidence of an appropriate person or persons (including
specialists, where appropriate) reviewing all technical
correspondence or other deliverable, as per relevant KPMG
policies?

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
5
Date 2015-10-08
1.1.6
1.1.7
1.1.8
1.1.9
1.1.10
1.1.11
Documentation of oral advice and discussions

Were oral advice and discussions documented?
Not Applicable
Documented analysis
Does the engagement documentation reflect appropriate analysis of
facts and other information?
Satisfactory
Deliverable consistent with scope

Are the deliverable and other services provided consistent with the
scope set forth in the engagement letter or in any subsequently
agreed modifications?
Satisfactory
Communication
Is there an appropriate level of interaction with the client and
among the members of the engagement team (including between
different member firms in case of a MFE)?
Satisfactory
Appropriate caveats
Did the advice or other deliverable contain appropriate caveats?
Transmittal letter or other filing instructions

Have the tax return transmittal letter and/or other filing instructions
been issued in accordance with KPMG policies?
It was not notices that there were oral

discussions.
The deliverables were cosistent with the EL

scope.
Satisfactory
Satisfactory

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
6
Date 2015-10-08
1.1.13
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
Additional comments
Based on your review of this engagement file, are there other
matters that you would like to comment on? In particular, best
practices noticed or opportunities that were identified to enhance
the efficiency of the engagement work?
File Rating
Summary of Answers
Please note the summary of your responses to section 1.1 is
indicated below.
Overall Evaluation
Please evaluate and provide a rating to this file based on the overall
quality of professional performance on this engagement.
No
I confirm that I have read the

suggested rating guidance and
that it will inform my overall
evaluation of this section.
S - Satisfactory
Reasons for your Rating

The file is consistent with
general KPMG polices and
procedures.
Please provide a description of the key factors influencing your
overall rating decision about the quality of professional
performance in this engagement.

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
7
Date 2015-10-08
2
2.3
Review Status and Feedback

Engagement partner or team agreed
Has the outcome of the review, including the overall engagement
rating, been discussed and agreed with a member of the
engagement team? If you answer "No" you must enter a comment
as to why it was not agreed.
Yes
Enter comments here from the Engagement

team:
If the engagement team has any comments which they would like
to make prior to the submission of this engagement review, the
engagement team should record such comments in the "Enter any
comments here" section of this question and clearly indicate that
the comment is FROM THE ENGAGEMENT TEAM, and who it
is that is making the comment.
2.4
2.7
2.8
Name of Member of Engagement Team

Enter the name of the member of the engagement team with whom
the review has been discussed.
Abdelwadoud, Khaled
Date Review agreed with Engagement Team

Enter the date the review was agreed with the engagement team (if
the review was not agreed, enter the date of completion of the
review).
2014-08-06
Time spent on review

What was the total number of hours spent on this review by the
reviewer (review team)? Include all time spent by the reviewer, any
specialists and the review team leader in performing the review,
time spent in discussions with the engagement team, time
completing the Qubus questionnaire, etc.

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
8
Date 2015-10-08

2.9
QP Reviewer Country
Please select the country from which the QP Reviewer is originally
from:
Iraq
The Following Questions are Relevant but Were Unanswered
(0)

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
9
Date 2015-10-08
AnswerSet
Question
Number
0
0.1
0.1.1
0.1.2
0.1.3
0.1.5
0.1.7
#8526;2014;KPMG Hazem Hassan - EGYPT;MESA;Corporate & Business Tax;MESA;;Tax;Egypt;Elmenyawi,

Maged;Husein, Amin;No;EMA;
Answer:
General Information
Cross Border Client
Yes
Client References
Yes

Type Engagement
Tax Advisory

Comments:
Non-Audit Client

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
10
Date 2015-10-08
0.1.8

No
0.1.9
0.1.10
Not Applicable

11

0.1.11
0.1.12
0.1.13
Fee Revenue
Covered by a Multi-firm
engagement
$1 - $25,000
Fee Arrangement

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
11
Date 2015-10-08
0.2
0.2.1
Fixed fee
Engagement Team
emails)
Elmenyawi, Maged

0.2.2

partner).

0.2.3

N/A

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
12
Date 2015-10-08
0.2.4

manager(s).

manager hours.

0.2.5


1
1.1
1.1.1
Tax

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
13
Date 2015-10-08

1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
Satisfactory

procedures?
Satisfactory
Engagement Team
Satisfactory

Satisfactory

policies?
Sentinel provided by the originating firm and

the date is prior to MFE
The advice was signed by the preparer and

reviewed by the partner.
Satisfactory

Not Applicable
Documented analysis
This advice is not required orarl discussion.
Satisfactory

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
14
Date 2015-10-08
1.1.8
1.1.9
1.1.10
1.1.12
1.1.13

Satisfactory
The advice is consistent with the the scope

agreed on the MFE.
Communication
Not Applicable
There were correspondences between the

origination firm and the participating firm and
this was documented in the file.
Satisfactory
The caveat eas noted in the advice.
Satisfactory
At the end of the advice there is a conclusion

summarizing the advice.
Appropriate caveats
Reasonable conclusions or accurate calculations

Does it appear that the advice or other deliverable contain
conclusions that are reasonable?
Additional comments
No

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
15
Date 2015-10-08
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
File Rating
Summary of Answers
indicated below.

Overall Evaluation
S - Satisfactory

The file is consistent with
KPMG policies and procedures.

2
2.3

Yes

team:

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
16
Date 2015-10-08
2.4
2.7
2.8

Elmenyawi, Maged

review).
2014-08-06


2.9
QP Reviewer Country

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
17
Date 2015-10-08

from:
Iraq
(0)

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
18
Date 2015-10-08
AnswerSet
Question
Number
0
0.1
0.1.1
0.1.2
0.1.3
0.1.5
0.1.7
#8533;2014;Cairo Office;MESA;Corporate & Business Tax;MESA;;Tax;Egypt;Mohamed Mostafa;Amin Husein;No;EMA;

Answer:
General Information
Cross Border Client
No
Client References
Yes

Type Engagement
Tax Return

Comments:
Other Audit Clients

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
19
Date 2015-10-08
0.1.8

No
0.1.9
0.1.10
Not Applicable

151

0.1.11
0.1.12
0.1.13
Fee Revenue
Covered under contract with an

external client
$1 - $25,000
Fee Arrangement

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
20
Date 2015-10-08
0.2
0.2.1
Fixed fee
Engagement Team
emails)
Khalifa Mohamed

0.2.2

partner).

0.2.3

El Reifi Mostafa

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
21
Date 2015-10-08
0.2.4

manager(s).
54

manager hours.

0.2.5


1
1.1
1.1.1
Tax

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
22
Date 2015-10-08

1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
Satisfactory
The Sentinel date and scope are appropriate

comparing to EL.

procedures?
Satisfactory
All RM part is appropriated completed and

documented in the file. Internal COI was
conducted.
Engagement Team
Satisfactory

Satisfactory

policies?
Satisfactory

The meetings with the client were documented

in the file including the review requirements
and the supporting documentations.
Satisfactory
Documented analysis
Satisfactory

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
There is proper review of the case and the

information that were reviewed and the
NOT FOR RELEASE
KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
23
Date 2015-10-08
partner has communicated the outcome of the

review with the client to be aware of the
expected outcome from discussion with the
tax commission.
1.1.8
1.1.9
1.1.10
1.1.11
1.1.13

Satisfactory
The deliverables and the invoice is consistent

with the EL.
Communication
Satisfactory
The meetings with client conducted and

documented in the file.
Not Applicable
This is not an advice, however, the final letter

contains proper caveat.
Appropriate caveats

Satisfactory
Additional comments
No

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
24
Date 2015-10-08
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
File Rating
Summary of Answers
indicated below.

Overall Evaluation
S - Satisfactory

The file is complete from RM
perspectives, documentation
and deliverables.
2
2.3

Yes

team:

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
25
Date 2015-10-08
2.4
2.7
2.8

Elrify, Mostafa

review).
2014-08-06



EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
26
Date 2015-10-08
2.9
QP Reviewer Country
from:
Iraq
(0)

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
27
Date 2015-10-08
AnswerSet
Question
Number
0
0.1
0.1.1
0.1.2
0.1.3
0.1.5
0.1.6
#8528;2014;Cairo;MESA;Corporate & Business Tax;MESA;;Tax;Egypt;Balbaa,Khaled;Husein,Amin;No;EMA;

Answer:
General Information
Cross Border Client
No
Client References
Yes

Type Engagement
Other Services
Details of Tax Return or Other Services

Please specify what type of Tax Return or Other Services were
provided:
Comments:
our services is corporate tax

compliance for yaers 2008-2009

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
28
Date 2015-10-08
0.1.7
0.1.8

Non-Audit Client

No
0.1.9
0.1.10
Not Applicable

23

0.1.11
0.1.12
Covered under contract with an

external client
Fee Revenue

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
29
Date 2015-10-08
0.1.13
0.2
0.2.1
$1 - $25,000
Fee Arrangement
Fixed fee
Engagement Team
emails)
Balbaa, Khaled

0.2.2

partner).

0.2.3

Elmadany, Mohamed

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
30
Date 2015-10-08

0.2.4

manager(s).
23

manager hours.

0.2.5



EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
31
Date 2015-10-08
1
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
Tax
Satisfactory
The Sentinel date and scope are appropriate

comparing to EL.

procedures?
Satisfactory
The RM part in completed according to

KPMG policies and on timely basis. The
internal COI was conducted.
Engagement Team
Satisfactory
The tax manager and partner were directly

involved in this job.

Satisfactory
This is tax inspection EL. I have noted proper

documentation of documents and related
correspondences with the client. The final
documents were printed on client letter head
and signed by the client.
Satisfactory
The tax manager copying the tax director did

all the correspondences with the client.

policies?

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
32
Date 2015-10-08
1.1.7
1.1.8
1.1.9
1.1.10
1.1.13
Satisfactory
Documented analysis
Satisfactory

Satisfactory
Communication
Satisfactory
I have noted that all the visits to the client

were appropriately documented.
Not Applicable
This not an advice. It is tax inspection

assistance.
Appropriate caveats
Additional comments
I have noted that there is documentation for

oral discussion with the tax inspector
requirements and this was appropriately
communicated t0 the client.
No

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
33
Date 2015-10-08
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
File Rating
Summary of Answers
indicated below.

Overall Evaluation
S - Satisfactory

The file is complete in term of
RM procedures, documentation,
and deliverables and within the
agreed scope.
2
2.3

Yes

team:

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
34
Date 2015-10-08
2.4
2.7
2.8

Elmadany, Mohamed

review).
2014-08-06



EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
35
Date 2015-10-08
2.9
QP Reviewer Country
from:
Iraq
(0)

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
36
Date 2015-10-08
AnswerSet
Question
Number
0
0.1
0.1.1
0.1.2
0.1.3
0.1.5
0.1.7
#8530;2014;cairo;MESA;Corporate & Business Tax;MESA;;Tax;Egypt;kamel ,mohamed;Balbaa,khaled;No;EMA;

Answer:
General Information
Cross Border Client
No
Client References
Yes

Type Engagement
Tax Return

Comments:
Non-Audit Client

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
37
Date 2015-10-08
0.1.8

No
0.1.9
0.1.10
Not Applicable

142

0.1.11
0.1.12
0.1.13
Fee Revenue

$1 - $25,000
Fee Arrangement

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
38
Date 2015-10-08
0.2
0.2.1
Fixed fee
Engagement Team
emails)
Mohamed Kamel

0.2.2

partner).

0.2.3

Mustafa Thabet

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
39
Date 2015-10-08
0.2.4

manager(s).
65

manager hours.

0.2.5


1
1.1
1.1.1
Tax

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
40
Date 2015-10-08

1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
Satisfactory
The date and the scope in the Sentinel are

appropriate comparing with the EL.

procedures?
Satisfactory
All RM part is appropriated completed and

Engagement Team
Satisfactory

Satisfactory

policies?

Documented analysis
Satisfactory
There was direct involvement of the tax

manager and the partner in correspondence
with the client.
Satisfactory
The meetings with the client were documented

in the file.
Satisfactory
The information in the tax return were

appropriately documents and traced with the

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
41
Date 2015-10-08
FS and additional confirmations were obtained

from client and documented in the file.
1.1.8
1.1.9
1.1.10
1.1.11
1.1.13

Satisfactory
Communication
Satisfactory
Appropriate caveats
Satisfactory

Additional comments
Satisfactory
No

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
42
Date 2015-10-08
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
File Rating
Summary of Answers
indicated below.

Overall Evaluation
S - Satisfactory

The file was completed from
RM perspectives,
documentation and
communications with client.
2
2.3

Yes

team:
EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
43
Date 2015-10-08

2.4
2.7
2.8

Nayel, Mohamed

review).
2014-08-05


2.9
QP Reviewer Country

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
44
Date 2015-10-08

from:
Iraq
(0)

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
45
Date 2015-10-08
AnswerSet
Question
Number
0
0.1
0.1.1
0.1.2
0.1.3
0.1.5
0.1.6
#8535;2014;Cairo Office;MESA;Corporate & Business Tax;MESA;;Tax;Egypt;rewaished Salah;Amin Husein;No;EMA;

Answer:
General Information
Cross Border Client
Comments:
No
Client References
Yes

Type Engagement
Other Services

provided:
corporate tax return complience

for the year 2008 .

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
46
Date 2015-10-08
0.1.7
0.1.8

SECRAC

No
0.1.9
0.1.10
Not Applicable

183

0.1.11
0.1.12

Fee Revenue

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
47
Date 2015-10-08
0.1.13
0.2
0.2.1
$1 - $25,000
Fee Arrangement
Fixed fee
Engagement Team
emails)
Rewaished Saleh

0.2.2

partner).

0.2.3

Mohamed Ahmed

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
48
Date 2015-10-08

0.2.4

manager(s).
118

manager hours.

0.2.5



EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
49
Date 2015-10-08
1
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
Tax
Satisfactory

procedures?
Satisfactory
The RM procedures were appropriately

conducted.
Engagement Team
Satisfactory
Tax partner and his team were involved in this

assignment. I have noticed direct involvement
of the partner in representing the client with
tax commission.

Satisfactory
There is complete documentations for the

reviewed points and communicated with the
client before representing him with the tax
commission.
Satisfactory
The lead partner was directly involved in the

communications.

policies?

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
50
Date 2015-10-08
1.1.7
1.1.8
1.1.9
1.1.10
1.1.13
Satisfactory
All discussion were through email. Meetings

with client were documented in the file.
Documented analysis
Satisfactory
There is proper review of the case and the

information that were reviewed and the
partner has communicated the outcome of the
review with the client to be aware of the
expected outcome from discussion with the
tax commission.

Satisfactory
Communication
Satisfactory
There is internal discussion for seeking an

opinion and there is approval on the internal
opinion based on the internal discussion.
Satisfactory
This is not applicable on this engagement. The

tax commission prepared the report. KPMG
sent summary of the outcome to the client by
email and the client approved the assessment.
Appropriate caveats
Additional comments

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
51
Date 2015-10-08

1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
Yes
File Rating
Summary of Answers
indicated below.
It was noted that KPMG has discussed the

case internally. The internal opinion was
summarized and discussed with the client
before initiating the discussion with tax
commission so that the client is aware of the
expectation. This will help minimize the
discussion and meet the client expectations
according to initial KPMG opinion.

Overall Evaluation
S - Satisfactory


perspectives. The
communications with client
were on timely basis on all
stages of the job.

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
52
Date 2015-10-08
2
2.3

Yes

team:
2.4
2.7
2.8

Rewaished, Saleh

review).
2014-08-05


EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
53
Date 2015-10-08

2.9
QP Reviewer Country
from:
Iraq
(0)

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
54
Date 2015-10-08
AnswerSet
Question
Number
0
0.1
0.1.1
0.1.2
0.1.3
0.1.5
0.1.7
#8525;2014;Cairo;MESA;Corporate & Business Tax;MESA;;Tax;Egypt;Balbaa, Khaled;Husein, Amin;No;EMA;

Answer:
General Information
Cross Border Client
Yes
Client References
Yes

Type Engagement
Tax Return

Comments:
SECRAC

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
55
Date 2015-10-08
0.1.8

Yes
0.1.9
0.1.10
Not Applicable

138

0.1.11
0.1.12
0.1.13
Fee Revenue

$1 - $25,000
Fee Arrangement

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
56
Date 2015-10-08
0.2
0.2.1
Fixed fee
Engagement Team
emails)
Balbaa,Khaled

0.2.2

partner).

0.2.3

Essa,Mohamed

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
57
Date 2015-10-08
0.2.4

manager(s).
41

manager hours.

0.2.5


0.2.6
Info - Engagement Quality Control Review Partner Name

Enter the name of the Engagement Quality Control Review Partner
(Last name, First name - as displayed in emails).
Kamel,Mohamed

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
58
Date 2015-10-08
If there is more than one Engagement Quality Control Review

partner, list all partners/directors involved, but you must identify
which individual has responsibility for this engagement.
If not applicable, please enter "Not Applicable" in the response
field.
1
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
Tax
Satisfactory

procedures?
Satisfactory
Engagement Team
Satisfactory

Satisfactory

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
There is a separate risk file includes all

relevant documentations.
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
59
Date 2015-10-08
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
1.1.8
1.1.9
1.1.10

policies?
Satisfactory
The engagement is not requiring technical

correspondences as all technical information
are obtained from client and reviewed by the
team. Once satisfied the tax return is sent with
caveat letter to the client.
Satisfactory
There is no oral discussions and information

exchanged by emails.
Documented analysis
Satisfactory
All relevant tax return information were

analyzed, supported with documentations and

Satisfactory
The service was limited to engagement letter

scope and the invoice is consistent with this
fact.
Communication
Satisfactory
The file information section clearly indicates

that the information was obtained from client
in a meeting. Any information requested were
through communication by email.
Satisfactory
There is a caveat letter documented in the file

Appropriate caveats

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
60
Date 2015-10-08
explaining all amendment made and the

requirements to sign the tax return and filing it
within the due date to avoid the delay filing
penalties.
1.1.11
1.1.13
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3

Additional comments
Satisfactory
No
File Rating
Summary of Answers
indicated below.

Overall Evaluation
S - Satisfactory

perspectives, EL and
deliverables including

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
61
Date 2015-10-08
communications with client.

2
2.3

Yes

team:
2.4
2.7

Balbaa, Khaled

review).
2014-08-05

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
62
Date 2015-10-08
2.8


2.9
QP Reviewer Country
from:
Iraq
(0)

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
63
Date 2015-10-08
AnswerSet
Question
Number
0
0.1
0.1.1
0.1.2
0.1.3
0.1.4
0.1.5
#8527;2014;Cairo office;MESA;Bookkeeping;MESA;;Tax;Egypt;Elmenyawi, Maged;Husein, Amin;No;EMA;

Answer:
General Information
Cross Border Client
Yes
Client References
Yes

Reviewer Practice Area - Other

As you selected "Other" in the above question, please indicate the
practice area of the reviewer:
Comments:
Other
payroll services
Type Engagement
Other Services

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
64
Date 2015-10-08
0.1.6
0.1.7
0.1.8

provided:
payroll services

Non-Audit Client

No
0.1.9
0.1.10
Not Applicable

815


EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
65
Date 2015-10-08
0.1.11
0.1.12
0.1.13
0.2
0.2.1
Covered by a Multi-firm
engagement
Fee Revenue
$50,001 - $100,000
Fee Arrangement
Fixed fee
Engagement Team
emails)
Elmenyawy, Maged

0.2.2

partner).


EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
66
Date 2015-10-08
0.2.3

Halawa, Hesham - Tolba,

Mohamed - Tantawy, Sabry

0.2.4

manager(s).
174

manager hours.

0.2.5

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
67
Date 2015-10-08

1
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
Tax
Satisfactory
Sentinel received from KPMG lower Gulf, the

engagement is under MFE. The date of
Sentinel and the scope is approproate with the
EL date and scope.

procedures?
Satisfactory
The local conflic document was completed.

This engagement under MFE.
Engagement Team
Satisfactory
The project hours sheet shows all professional

levels involved in the project.

Satisfactory
The payroll information received by email and

the data procesed on excel formulas and sent
back to dubai office. No other information
documentation needed.

Satisfactory
The partner incharge is directly involved in

corresponsences with the client.

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
68
Date 2015-10-08

policies?
1.1.6
1.1.7
1.1.8
1.1.9
1.1.10

Satisfactory
No oral communication needed in this MFE.
Documented analysis
Satisfactory

Satisfactory
The deliverables are consistent with the scope

of MFE.
Communication
Satisfactory
This is monthly recurring compliance work

with time limit and there is monthly
deliverable properly communicated.
Satisfactory
The caveat is included in the monthly email.
Appropriate caveats

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
69
Date 2015-10-08
1.1.13
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
Additional comments
No
File Rating
Summary of Answers
indicated below.

Overall Evaluation
S - Satisfactory

The file is complete from all
RM perspectives according to
KPMG policies and procedures.
2
2.3


EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
70
Date 2015-10-08

Yes

team:
2.4
2.7
2.8

halawa, Hisham

review).
2014-08-05


EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
71
Date 2015-10-08

2.9
QP Reviewer Country
from:
Iraq
(0)

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
72
Date 2015-10-08
AnswerSet
Question
Number
0
0.1
0.1.1
0.1.2
0.1.3
0.1.5
0.1.7
#8611;2014;Alex office;MESA;Corporate & Business Tax;MESA;;Tax;Egypt;Mohamed Mostafa;Amin hussein;No;EMA;

Answer:
General Information
Cross Border Client
Comments:
No
Client References
Yes
confirm that I will not include any client

names (including names of parent or
subsidiary companies or names of significant
stakeholders, customers, vendors, or lenders)
in the answers and comments to this
questionnaire, unless prompted to do so on a
"PIN Performance Improvement Necessary"
or "U- Unsatisfactory" rated engagement of a
cross-border client

Type Engagement
Tax Return

SECRAC

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
73
Date 2015-10-08
0.1.8

No
0.1.9
0.1.10
Not Applicable

176

0.1.11
0.1.12
Fee Revenue

$1 - $25,000

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
74
Date 2015-10-08
0.1.13
0.2
0.2.1
Fee Arrangement
Fixed fee
Engagement Team
emails)
Mostafa Mohamed

0.2.2

partner).

0.2.3

El molla Ibrahim / abbas

ibrahim

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
75
Date 2015-10-08
0.2.4

manager(s).
79

manager hours.

0.2.5


1
1.1
Tax

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
76
Date 2015-10-08
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7

Satisfactory

procedures?
Satisfactory
There is a separate file for Risk management

includes the engagement acceptance, client
acceptance, Sentinel, Invoices and the EL. All
properly prepared and signed.
Engagement Team
Satisfactory
The time allocation sheet shows the

involvement of the partner and other
engagement members on the engagement.

Satisfactory
All information in the tax return were traced

with the FS and separate section with proper
documentation were maintained and properly
documented.
Satisfactory
The engagement is not requiring technical

correspondences as all technical information
are obtained from client and reviewed by the
team. Once satisfied the tax return is sent with
caveat letter to the client.
Satisfactory
There is no oral discussions and information

exchanged by emails.

policies?

Documented analysis

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
77
Date 2015-10-08

1.1.8
1.1.9
1.1.10
1.1.11
1.1.13
Satisfactory
All relevant tax return information were

analyzed, supported with documentations and

Satisfactory
The service was limited to engagement letter

scope and the invoice is consistent with this
fact.
Communication
Satisfactory
The file information section clearly indicates

that the information was obtained from client
in a meeting. Any information requested were
through communication by email.
Satisfactory
There is a caveat letter documented in the file

explaining all amendment made and the
requirements to sign the tax return and filing it
within the due date to avoid the delay filing
penalties.
Appropriate caveats

Additional comments
Satisfactory
No

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
78
Date 2015-10-08

1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
File Rating
Summary of Answers
indicated below.

Overall Evaluation
S - Satisfactory

The file is complete based in
RM rewuirements within
KPMG.
2
2.3

Yes

team:No comment from the engagement team.

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
79
Date 2015-10-08

2.4
2.7
2.8

Balbaa, Khaled

review).
2014-08-05


EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
80
Date 2015-10-08
2.9
QP Reviewer Country
from:
Iraq
(0)

EXTERNAL TO KPMG
BUSINESS SENSITIVE
NOT FOR RELEASE

KPMG PROPRIETARY &
Page
81
Date 2015-10-08

The Final Reports For All Tax and Insurance Departments 2014

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Final Reports For All Tax and Insurance Departments 2014

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Report

Countries included in this report:

#8701;2014;cairo;MESA;Corporate & Business Tax;MESA;;Tax;Egypt;Alaam , mohamed;husein amin;No;EMA;

Question Title and Text:

Reviewer Practice Area

Corporate & Business Tax

2014 International QP Toolkit

NOT FOR RELEASE

Type of engagement (more than one option can be selected):

Audit Client of KPMG

Other Audit Clients

High Risk Engagement

See Help Text for explanation of option items

Total Engagement Hours

Please enter in hours rounded to the nearest whole hour without

Covered under a formal

2014 International QP Toolkit

NOT FOR RELEASE

and regulations or court order

If there is more than one engagement partner, list all partners

Info - Lead Engagement Partner Hours

Please enter in hours rounded to the nearest whole hour without

Info - Engagement Manager Name

2014 International QP Toolkit

NOT FOR RELEASE

name - as displayed in emails)

If there is more than one engagement manager, list all managers

Info - Engagement Manager Hours

If multiple engagement managers are involved, please include total

Please enter in hours rounded to the nearest whole hour without

Info - Engagement Quality Control Reviewer Hours

2014 International QP Toolkit

NOT FOR RELEASE

Please enter in hours rounded to the nearest whole hour without

The sentinel date and scope consistent with

Risk Management Assessment

The RM part is consistent with KPMG

There is direct invilvement from the director

Documentation and appropriate file quality control

All supporing documents for the rewuired

The correspondences and meetings was with

Review of technical correspondence

2014 International QP Toolkit

NOT FOR RELEASE

Documentation of oral advice and discussions

Deliverable consistent with scope

Transmittal letter or other filing instructions

It was not notices that there were oral

The deliverables were cosistent with the EL

2014 International QP Toolkit

NOT FOR RELEASE

I confirm that I have read the

Reasons for your Rating

2014 International QP Toolkit

NOT FOR RELEASE

Review Status and Feedback

Enter comments here from the Engagement

Name of Member of Engagement Team

Date Review agreed with Engagement Team

Time spent on review

2014 International QP Toolkit

NOT FOR RELEASE